From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752323Ab3JUGwl (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 02:52:41 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:37312 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750866Ab3JUGwj (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 02:52:39 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,535,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="310431183" Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:04 +0300 From: Mika Westerberg To: Benson Leung 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 Message-ID: <20131021065804.GX3521@intel.com> References: <1382326010-4554-1-git-send-email-bleung@chromium.org> <1382326010-4554-3-git-send-email-bleung@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1382326010-4554-3-git-send-email-bleung@chromium.org> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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... From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-designware-pci: Index Haswell ULT bus names from 0 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:04 +0300 Message-ID: <20131021065804.GX3521@intel.com> References: <1382326010-4554-1-git-send-email-bleung@chromium.org> <1382326010-4554-3-git-send-email-bleung@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1382326010-4554-3-git-send-email-bleung-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Benson Leung 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 List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.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...