On Wednesday 21 July 2004 01:25, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> Kenneth Aafløy wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 July 2004 21:08, Holger Waechtler wrote:
> > > wouldn't it be better to replace the from-scratch list-and-device
> > > handling in dvb_i2c.[hc] by the driver/bus infrastructure in 2.6 that
> > > provides the same functionality
>
> Holger, what exactly do you mean here?
I think he's talking about the general device/bus interface <linux/device.h>,
which needs a fair amount of support code in order to work, as far as I know.
> > > and to rename every dvb_i2c occurence by
> > > dvb_uC in order to mirror the additional flexibility of this code?
> >
> > I'm not sure anymore..does anyone else have an oppinion on this before I
> > do the rest of the conversions?
>
> The goal was to get sysfs support for firmware loading. And people
> on lkml also perceived dvb_i2c as a duplication of code from the
> i2c driver layer, and wanted it to be removed.
Johannes, thank you for recapping that, as I've lost track in the mist :)
Theoretically, the kernel I2C layer provides exactly the same behavior as the
old dvb_i2c layer, with added features. Who says we can't mimic/emulate
another bus type on I2C as long as the drivers are aware of the protocol in
use on the adapter.
Kenneth
