On 1/11/08, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:41:36 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote: > > Since copying i2c-mpc.c to maintain support for the ppc architecture seems > > to be an issue; instead rework i2c-mpc.c to use CONFIG_PPC_MERGE #ifdefs to > > support both the ppc and powerpc architecture. When ppc is deleted in six > > months these #ifdefs will need to be removed. > > > > Another rework of the i2c for powerpc device tree patch. This version > > implements standard alias naming only on the powerpc platform and only for > > the device tree names. The old naming mechanism of > > i2c_client.name,driver_name is left in place and not changed for > > non-powerpc platforms. This patch is fully capable of dynamically loading > > the i2c modules. You can modprobe in the i2c-mpc driver and the i2c modules > > described in the device tree will be automatically loaded. Modules also > > work if compiled in. > > > > The follow on patch to module-init-tools is also needed since the i2c > > subsystem has never implemented dynamic loading. > > > > The following series implements standard linux module aliasing for i2c > > modules on arch=powerpc. It then converts the mpc i2c driver from being a > > platform driver to an open firmware one. I2C device names are picked up > > from the device tree. Module aliasing is used to translate from device tree > > names into to linux kernel names. Several i2c drivers are updated to use > > the new aliasing. > > Now that I have read all the previous versions of this patch series > and, more importantly, all objections that were raised on the way, I > can start reviewing the latest iteration of your patches. I'll also do > some testing, although I have no powerpc stuff here, but at least I > want to make sure that there are no regressions introduced by your > patches on x86.
Various people were worried about x86. Around version 15 I altered the patches so that they only impacted PowerPC. If they impact x86 in current form that is a bug. When x86 is ready for it I do think dynamic module loading should be implemented there also. > > -- > Jean Delvare > -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
