RE: [PATCH V3 1/5] i2c: Add irq_gpio field to struct i2c_client, i2c_board_info.

[Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Jean Delvare wrote at Friday, September 02, 2011 3:25 AM:
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:19:24 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On 09/02/11 07:56, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Stephen,
> > >
> > > Can you please fix your e-mail client / system / whatever so that your
> > > patch series are no longer sent duplicated?
> > >
> > > On Thu,  1 Sep 2011 16:04:27 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >> Some devices use a single pin as both an IRQ and a GPIO. In that case,
> > >> irq_gpio is the GPIO ID for that pin. Not all drivers use this feature.
> > >> Where they do, and the use of this feature is optional, and the system
> > >> wishes to disable this feature, this field must be explicitly set to a
> > >> defined invalid GPIO ID, such as -1.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> > >> ---
> > >> v3: Also add the field to i2c_board_info, and copy the field from
> > >>     i2c_board_info to i2c_client upon instantiation
> > >
> > > I don't get the idea. The i2c core doesn't make any use of the field,
> > > and that field will only be used by a few drivers amongst the 420+
> > > i2c drivers in the tree. This looks like a waste of memory. What's wrong
> > > with including the new field in the private platform or arch data
> > > structure for drivers which need it?
> >
> > Why not make it platform data for now and 'if' it becomes way more common
> > (probably won't) we can always propose adding as a general field at a later
> > date.
> 
> Yes, this sounds like a much more reasonable approach.

BTW, if that's the direction that's decided, just take the first version
of the patchset I posted, plus Jonathan Cameron's subsequent patch to
modify ak8975 to accept GPIO ID through platform data.

-- 
nvpublic