On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:46:06PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: [...] > > > Like what I suggested: "chip-aware OF glue drivers". The relevant > > > bus code being the "of_platform_bus_type" infrastructure. > > > > > > Example: instead of Anton's patch #6 modifying the existing pca953x > > > driver, an of_pca953x driver that knows how to poke around in the OF > > > device attributes to (a) create the pca953x_platform_data, (b) call > > > i2c_register_board_info() to make that available later, and then > > > finally (c) vanish, since it's not needed any longer. > > > > Heh. You tell me my first approach: > > > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-May/056730.html (mmc_spi) > > > > The OF people didn't like the patch which was used to support this > > approach: > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-May/056728.html > > Though, I think I'll able to persuade Grant that two registration paths > are inevitable (i.e. for simple devices we should use > drivers/of/of_{i2c,spi}.c and for complex cases we'll have to have > another method of registration).
Ok, here it is. I don't like this approach because: 1. It feels like an overhead to create an of_device for each i2c device that needs platform data. 2. We have to do ugly of_should_create_pdev() in the i2c code, and duplicate lists of supported devices. Could anybody convince me that this isn't a big deal? ;-) Otherwise I'll stick with this approach: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/22/471 Thanks, -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c