Hi Bruce, The Upstream-Status:Submitted[http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-iio/msg24331.html] for more information, please visit https://github.com/ostroproject/meta-ostro-bsp/pull/34
without this patch, the device I2C name is mismatch with the IIO name: root@intel-corei7-64:/sys/bus/i2c/devices/1-0040# cat name tmp006 root@intel-corei7-64:/sys/bus/i2c/devices/1-0040# cat iio\:device0/name 1-0040 Sensor framework(Soletta) will use this name, the name "tmp006" is much better than the "X-0040" Thanks, Yong 2016-05-31 2:22 GMT+08:00 Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com>: > On 2016-05-28 09:50 PM, Saul Wold wrote: >> >> On Sat, 2016-05-28 at 12:34 +0800, Yong Li wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bruce Saul, >>> >>> I had submitted the patches into Kernel mail list, the concern is the >>> legacy application compatibility: >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-iio/index.html#24331 >>> >>> For the Ostro OS, Using Soletta framrwork, we have tested/verified >>> more more than 30 different I2C >>> devices(https://ostroproject.org/documentation/hardware/sensors.html) >>> . >>> But only the two devices have incorrect device names(the IIO name >>> does >>> not match the I2C device name). QA team think it is a bug >>> >> So is it possible to fix the test in this case to correctly handle the >> legacy naming rather than make it fail? I guess the concern here is if >> we "fix" the name, we will really break the legacy applications. It's >> possible for those application to run in Ostro also and since Ostro is >> newer, it would break those rather than the other way around. > > > Any update on this ? I can merge the change to standard/intel, but > if we do that, I'd like to update the commit logs to show the upstream > submission, and explain that why this use case prefers to make the > names match (versus the upstream compatibility argument). > > That way, we'll know to carry the patch and not try to re-submit it > upstream later. > > Bruce > >> >> Sau! >> >>> Thanks, >>> Yong >>> >>> 2016-05-27 23:51 GMT+08:00 Saul Wold <s...@linux.intel.com>: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2016-05-27 at 10:24 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2016-05-27 12:58 AM, Yong Li wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Maintainers, >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch fixes the “incorrect IIO device name” issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please merge it into standard/base branch for linux-yocto-4.4 >>>>>> if >>>>>> this looks okay. >>>>> >>>>> The change looks technically correct, just a question about if >>>>> these >>>>> are also going upstream to the mainline kernel. >>>>> >>>> Bruce, >>>> >>>> These are possibly candidates for the standard/intel branch, >>>> they where proposed upstream and deemed correct, but not merge-able >>>> due >>>> to creating incompatible names. >>>> >>>> Yong Li, >>>> What is requiring the name change in Ostro, why can't Ostro >>>> use the existing incorrect, but compatible name? >>>> >>>> Sau! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Yong Li >>>>>> >>>>>> Yong Li (2): >>>>>> iio: tmp006: Set correct iio name >>>>>> iio: si7020: Set correct iio name >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/iio/humidity/si7020.c | 2 +- >>>>>> drivers/iio/temperature/tmp006.c | 2 +- >>>>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> > -- _______________________________________________ linux-yocto mailing list linux-yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto