Grant Likely wrote: > On 10/15/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Don't Do That(tm). If you use this mechanism, and an adapter node >> doesn't have a bus number, then it doesn't get to pre-register devices, >> but instead must use i2c_new_device. > > Even that doesn't work. For example if a PCI device is probed which > registers an i2c bus; there needs to be a mechanism for the i2c layer > to know that an id is already spoken for, so once again there needs to > be a mechanism to map easily from id to device (or lack thereof).
As long as all statically-assigned buses have their devices passed to i2c_register_board_info by platform code before the PCI device is probed, the i2c layer will hand out bus numbers that don't conflict. > Where user == system integrator or firmware engineer. ie. boards with > no-populate options which affect the numbering; changes to match the > silkscreening on the chassis when a common board is used by multiple > systems. It's a conceivable scenario. (Again; this is more relevant > to eth and serial devices than i2c). Sure, but I guess I don't see the problem with such a person editing the label property. The label property also gives more freedom in terms of which characters can be used in the description. Aliases could still be used when there's a higher level abstraction related to purpose, not identification. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
