Hi Wolfram, On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:12:10 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Currently, every driver has to do it on its own, but it should be done > in the core, like we already do with board_info structs. > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.s...@pengutronix.de> > --- > > Based on v3.5-rc2. Only build tested, I don't have a OF based device > around at the moment. > (...) > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c > index a6ad32b..4791833 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ > #include <linux/irqflags.h> > #include <linux/rwsem.h> > #include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > +#include <linux/of_i2c.h> > #include <asm/uaccess.h> > > #include "i2c-core.h" > @@ -880,6 +881,8 @@ static int i2c_register_adapter(struct i2c_adapter *adap) > #endif > > /* create pre-declared device nodes */ > + of_i2c_register_devices(adap); > + > if (adap->nr < __i2c_first_dynamic_bus_num) > i2c_scan_static_board_info(adap); >
This was proposed in the past, and rejected because of dependency issues. I don't think the situation changed. of_i2c needs i2c-core for i2c_new_device(), and with the change above, i2c-core needs of_i2c for of_i2c_register_devices(). If either is built as a module, it will fail. This might be the reason why of_spi ended up being merged into drivers/spi according to Grant? I have no objection to the same being done for of_i2c if it makes everybody happy, as long as it does not create additional dependencies (i.e. I2C should not depend on OF.) -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev