From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>
Cc: wsa@the-dreams.de, khali@linux-fr.org,
andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, jacmet@sunsite.dk,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dlaurie@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-designware-pci: Index Haswell ULT bus names from 0
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:04 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131021065804.GX3521@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1382326010-4554-3-git-send-email-bleung@chromium.org>
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:26:50PM -0700, Benson Leung wrote:
> Rather than having the bus names be "i2c-designware-pci--1" because
> we have set the .bus_num to -1 to force dynamic allocation, lets have
> the busses named "i2c-designware-pci-0" and "i2c-designware-pci-1"
> to correspond to the correct names of these busses.
>
> The adapter number will still be dynamically assigned.
Is there any real value in having names like "i2c-designware-pci-0"
available? I would just drop the whole naming dance instead...
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
To: Benson Leung <bleung-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
Cc: wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org,
khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org,
andriy.shevchenko-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org,
jacmet-OfajU3CKLf1/SzgSGea1oA@public.gmane.org,
linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
dlaurie-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-designware-pci: Index Haswell ULT bus names from 0
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:04 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131021065804.GX3521@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1382326010-4554-3-git-send-email-bleung-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:26:50PM -0700, Benson Leung wrote:
> Rather than having the bus names be "i2c-designware-pci--1" because
> we have set the .bus_num to -1 to force dynamic allocation, lets have
> the busses named "i2c-designware-pci-0" and "i2c-designware-pci-1"
> to correspond to the correct names of these busses.
>
> The adapter number will still be dynamically assigned.
Is there any real value in having names like "i2c-designware-pci-0"
available? I would just drop the whole naming dance instead...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-21 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-21 3:26 [PATCH 0/2] i2c-designware-pci: Add Haswell ULT device support Benson Leung
2013-10-21 3:26 ` Benson Leung
2013-10-21 3:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] i2c-designware-pci: Add Haswell ULT device IDs Benson Leung
2013-10-21 6:53 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-10-21 6:53 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-10-21 14:23 ` Benson Leung
2013-10-21 14:23 ` Benson Leung
2013-10-21 3:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] i2c-designware-pci: Index Haswell ULT bus names from 0 Benson Leung
2013-10-21 3:26 ` Benson Leung
2013-10-21 6:58 ` Mika Westerberg [this message]
2013-10-21 6:58 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-10-21 14:20 ` Benson Leung
2013-10-21 14:20 ` Benson Leung
2013-10-21 16:12 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-10-21 16:12 ` Mika Westerberg
2013-11-14 18:05 ` Wolfram Sang
2013-11-14 18:05 ` Wolfram Sang
2013-11-20 2:14 ` Benson Leung
2013-11-26 13:09 ` Wolfram Sang
2013-11-26 13:09 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-01-03 15:52 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-01-03 15:52 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-01-10 0:12 ` Benson Leung
2014-01-10 0:12 ` Benson Leung
2014-01-10 7:59 ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-10 7:59 ` Jean Delvare
2014-01-16 19:51 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-01-16 19:51 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-01-16 20:14 ` Benson Leung
2014-01-16 20:14 ` Benson Leung
2013-10-21 15:05 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] i2c-designware-pci: Add Haswell ULT device support Benson Leung
2013-10-21 15:05 ` Benson Leung
2013-10-21 15:05 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] i2c-designware-pci: Add Haswell ULT device IDs Benson Leung
2013-10-21 15:05 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] i2c-designware-pci: Index Haswell ULT bus names from 0 Benson Leung
2013-10-21 16:14 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] i2c-designware-pci: Add Haswell ULT device support Mika Westerberg
2013-10-21 16:14 ` Mika Westerberg
2014-04-06 13:54 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-04-06 15:31 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-04-06 15:31 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-04-07 9:09 ` Mika Westerberg
2014-04-07 9:09 ` Mika Westerberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131021065804.GX3521@intel.com \
--to=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bleung@chromium.org \
--cc=dlaurie@chromium.org \
--cc=jacmet@sunsite.dk \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.