From: Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@gmx.de>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT'ed and/or ACPI'ed devices
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:29:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <538C8A59.2070907@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZvyfA0aaJe3YuevXfA2pTZLRPZ3mQpitL6qD7=qE0Xyg@mail.gmail.com>
Am 02.06.2014 14:16, schrieb Linus Walleij:
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
>>> point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which
>>> would adversely affect this option. If you think that it does, can you
>>> specify how please?
>>
>> Currently, if a driver would be DT only and does not provide a seperate
>> i2c_device_id table, then the driver is unusable with method 4. I don't
>> like to have some drivers being capable of it and some not.
>>
>>> Does the sysfs method create a i2c_device_id table? If not, how does
>>> it probe successfully pre-patch?
>>
>> The sysfs method creates a device. Its name is matched against
>> i2c_device_ids only since it does not have a node pointer for DT to be
>> matched against.
>
> Is this really so useful on embedded systems?
>
> I was under the impression that this method was something used
> on say PC desktops with temperature monitors and EEPROMs
> on some I2C link on the PCB, usage entirely optional and fun
> for userspace hacks.
>
We use it for dynamic instantiating whole subsystems with multiplexers,
sensors, controllers in an embedded system. The device list is taken
from an I2C eeprom which gets read on hotplug.
KR
Michael
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>
To: Linus Walleij
<linus.walleij-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org>,
Grant Likely
<grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT'ed and/or ACPI'ed devices
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:29:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <538C8A59.2070907@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZvyfA0aaJe3YuevXfA2pTZLRPZ3mQpitL6qD7=qE0Xyg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
Am 02.06.2014 14:16, schrieb Linus Walleij:
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
>>> point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which
>>> would adversely affect this option. If you think that it does, can you
>>> specify how please?
>>
>> Currently, if a driver would be DT only and does not provide a seperate
>> i2c_device_id table, then the driver is unusable with method 4. I don't
>> like to have some drivers being capable of it and some not.
>>
>>> Does the sysfs method create a i2c_device_id table? If not, how does
>>> it probe successfully pre-patch?
>>
>> The sysfs method creates a device. Its name is matched against
>> i2c_device_ids only since it does not have a node pointer for DT to be
>> matched against.
>
> Is this really so useful on embedded systems?
>
> I was under the impression that this method was something used
> on say PC desktops with temperature monitors and EEPROMs
> on some I2C link on the PCB, usage entirely optional and fun
> for userspace hacks.
>
We use it for dynamic instantiating whole subsystems with multiplexers,
sensors, controllers in an embedded system. The device list is taken
from an I2C eeprom which gets read on hotplug.
KR
Michael
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ml.lawnick@gmx.de (Michael Lawnick)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT'ed and/or ACPI'ed devices
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:29:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <538C8A59.2070907@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZvyfA0aaJe3YuevXfA2pTZLRPZ3mQpitL6qD7=qE0Xyg@mail.gmail.com>
Am 02.06.2014 14:16, schrieb Linus Walleij:
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
>>> point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which
>>> would adversely affect this option. If you think that it does, can you
>>> specify how please?
>>
>> Currently, if a driver would be DT only and does not provide a seperate
>> i2c_device_id table, then the driver is unusable with method 4. I don't
>> like to have some drivers being capable of it and some not.
>>
>>> Does the sysfs method create a i2c_device_id table? If not, how does
>>> it probe successfully pre-patch?
>>
>> The sysfs method creates a device. Its name is matched against
>> i2c_device_ids only since it does not have a node pointer for DT to be
>> matched against.
>
> Is this really so useful on embedded systems?
>
> I was under the impression that this method was something used
> on say PC desktops with temperature monitors and EEPROMs
> on some I2C link on the PCB, usage entirely optional and fun
> for userspace hacks.
>
We use it for dynamic instantiating whole subsystems with multiplexers,
sensors, controllers in an embedded system. The device list is taken
from an I2C eeprom which gets read on hotplug.
KR
Michael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-02 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-30 12:26 [PATCH 0/{1,1}] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT/ACPI Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26 ` [PATCH] i2c: Make I2C ID tables non-mandatory for DT'ed and/or ACPI'ed devices Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:36 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 12:36 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 12:55 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:55 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:55 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 13:34 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 13:34 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 13:34 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 17:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 17:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 17:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-30 19:25 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 19:25 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-31 13:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-31 13:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-31 13:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-06-02 12:16 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-02 12:16 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-02 12:16 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-02 12:38 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-06-02 12:38 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-06-02 12:38 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-06-02 13:26 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-02 13:26 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-02 13:26 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-02 13:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-06-02 13:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-06-02 13:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-06-02 14:29 ` Michael Lawnick [this message]
2014-06-02 14:29 ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-02 14:29 ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-03 11:18 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-03 11:18 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-03 11:18 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-04 6:09 ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-04 6:09 ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-04 6:09 ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-12 7:55 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-12 7:55 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-12 7:55 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-12 9:28 ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-12 9:28 ` Michael Lawnick
2014-06-12 9:28 ` Michael Lawnick
2014-05-30 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-30 12:26 ` Lee Jones
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=538C8A59.2070907@gmx.de \
--to=ml.lawnick@gmx.de \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.