Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: Drop I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname

2005-08-31 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Em Qua, 2005-08-31 às 13:56 -0700, Greg KH escreveu: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 12:34:58PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Ter, 2005-08-30 ?s 23:20 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu: > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > > > > (...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C > > > > API for every single

Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: Drop I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname

2005-08-31 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 12:34:58PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Ter, 2005-08-30 ?s 23:20 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu: > > Hi Mauro, > > > > > (...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C > > > API for every single 2.6 version :-) It would be nice to change I2C > > > API once and

Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: Drop I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname

2005-08-31 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Em Ter, 2005-08-30 às 23:20 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu: > Hi Mauro, > > > (...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C > > API for every single 2.6 version :-) It would be nice to change I2C > > API once and keep it stable for a while. > The Linux 2.6 development model is designed around

Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: Drop I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname

2005-08-30 Thread Jean Delvare
Hi Mauro, > (...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C > API for every single 2.6 version :-) It would be nice to change I2C > API once and keep it stable for a while. As nice as you seem to think it would be, I don't think it's not realistic. For one thing, we don't necessarily know in a

Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: Drop I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname

2005-08-30 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:12:42PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > I have a question for you about I2C: why i2c_driver doesn't have a > generic pointer to keep priv data (like i2c_adapter) ? Because no one has sent in a patch to add it :) thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from th

Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: Drop I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname

2005-08-29 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Hi, Jean, Em Qui, 2005-08-25 às 00:19 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu: > Hi Mauro, > > > That's not true. We keep V4L tree compatible with older kernel > > releases. Each change like this does generate a lot of work at V4L > > side to provide #ifdefs to check for linux version and provide a > > comp

Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: Drop I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname

2005-08-24 Thread Jean Delvare
Hi Mauro, > > I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname were introduced in 2.5.68 [1] to help > > media/video driver authors who wanted their code to be compatible > > with both Linux 2.4 and 2.6. The cause of the incompatibility has > > gone since [2], so I think we can get rid of them, as they tend to > >

Re: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: Drop I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname

2005-08-22 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Em Seg, 2005-08-15 às 19:57 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu: > Hi all, > > I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname were introduced in 2.5.68 [1] to help > media/video driver authors who wanted their code to be compatible with > both Linux 2.4 and 2.6. The cause of the incompatibility has gone since > [2], so

[PATCH 2.6] I2C: Drop I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname

2005-08-15 Thread Jean Delvare
Hi all, I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname were introduced in 2.5.68 [1] to help media/video driver authors who wanted their code to be compatible with both Linux 2.4 and 2.6. The cause of the incompatibility has gone since [2], so I think we can get rid of them, as they tend to make the code harder t