On Monday 14 July 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > We call adapter->client_register for both legacy and new-style i2c > devices, however we only call adapter->client_unregister for legacy > drivers. This doesn't make much sense. Usually, drivers will undo > in client_unregister what they did in client_register, so we should > call neither or both for every given i2c device. > > In order to ease the transition from legacy to new-style devices, it > seems preferable to actually call both. > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > David, is this OK with you?
The symmetry point is good; client_unregister() is only called (for now) in i2c_detach_client() -- a legacy-only procedure, which I guess is mandatory for legacy drivers to call at various points. Did you consider moving the call into i2c_device_remove() instead? That'd simplify things by minimizing call sites, and would ensure that no code path could skip the call. (The list_del calls could move there too...) It seems that all users of these adapater callbacks are in the drivers/media/video subtree, which has an atypical model for adapters. A more general notion for this kind of notification might be useful to non-video adapters, like a notifier scheme that's usable by third parties. - Dave _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
