On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:21:38 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On 10/15/07, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In fact I think it may be acceptle to do the idx++ thing in this > > situation. Bus numbers are ugly, but it's not the worst ugliness in > > the horrible mess that is the Linux i2c subsystem. It means that bus > > numbers are theoretically unstable, but that's increasingly true of > > devices of all sorts - it's up to udev to assign meaningful labels at > > the user level.
David, after such a rant against the Linux i2c subsystem, I sure hope that you're going to contribute patches to make it better (whatever you think needs to be improved, as you didn't say.) > I think the real problem here comes into play when there are 2 types > of i2c busses in the system. If they both maintain their own idx++ > values; then they will conflict. If an auto assigned bus number is > used; then it needs to be assigned by the i2c infrastructure; not by > the driver. Very true. If you aren't going to define the i2c bus numbers at platform data level, then you shouldn't be defining them _at all_. Don't use i2c_add_numbered_adapter, use i2c_add_adapter and let i2c-core choose an appropriate a bus number. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
