On 08.08.19 15:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:12:47PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
On 06.08.19 19:12, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
Right, we could add a macro for that. Although it should probably be called
I2C_OF_MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() or something
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:12:47PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> On 06.08.19 19:12, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>
> > Right, we could add a macro for that. Although it should probably be called
> > I2C_OF_MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() or something like that since is specific to OF.
On 06.08.19 19:12, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
Right, we could add a macro for that. Although it should probably be called
I2C_OF_MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() or something like that since is specific to OF.
At that point it should be completely noop when OF is disabled, so we
also can get rid of
Hello Geert,
On 8/6/19 9:30 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:48 AM Javier Martinez Canillas
> wrote:
>> On 8/1/19 4:17 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> So I think that we should either:
>>
>> a) take Kieran's patch or b) remove the i2c_of_match_device_sysfs() fallback
>> for
Hello Geert,
On 8/6/19 9:22 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Javier,
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:25 AM Javier Martinez Canillas
> wrote:
>> On 7/31/19 9:44 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> Hi Javier,
The other option is to remove i2c_of_match_device() and don't make OF match
to fallback
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:48 AM Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> On 8/1/19 4:17 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> So I think that we should either:
>
> a) take Kieran's patch or b) remove the i2c_of_match_device_sysfs() fallback
> for OF and require an I2C device table for sysfs instantiation and matc
Hi Javier,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:25 AM Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> On 7/31/19 9:44 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Hi Javier,
> >> The other option is to remove i2c_of_match_device() and don't make OF match
> >> to fallback to i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(). This is what happens in the
> >> A
Hello Masahiro-san,
On 8/1/19 4:17 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:44 AM Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>
>> Hi Javier,
>>
>> thank you for providing the extra information.
>>
>> (And Kieran, thanks for the patch!)
>>
>>> The other option is to remove i2c_of_match_device() an
Hello Wolfram,
On 7/31/19 9:44 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Javier,
>
> thank you for providing the extra information.
>
> (And Kieran, thanks for the patch!)
>
>> The other option is to remove i2c_of_match_device() and don't make OF match
>> to fallback to i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(). This is
Hi.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:44 AM Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> Hi Javier,
>
> thank you for providing the extra information.
>
> (And Kieran, thanks for the patch!)
>
> > The other option is to remove i2c_of_match_device() and don't make OF match
> > to fallback to i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(). This i
Hi Javier,
thank you for providing the extra information.
(And Kieran, thanks for the patch!)
> The other option is to remove i2c_of_match_device() and don't make OF match
> to fallback to i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(). This is what happens in the ACPI
> case, since i2c_device_match() just calls a
Hello Kieran,
On 7/10/19 9:39 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> I2C drivers match against an I2C ID table, an OF table, and an ACPI
> table. It is now also possible to match against an OF table entry
> without the vendor prefix to support backwards compatibility, and allow
> simplification of the i2c pr
I2C drivers match against an I2C ID table, an OF table, and an ACPI
table. It is now also possible to match against an OF table entry
without the vendor prefix to support backwards compatibility, and allow
simplification of the i2c probe functions.
As part of this matching, the probe function is b
13 matches
Mail list logo
