Hi Scott, On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:36:23 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > >>>> We might as well just use i2c_new_device() instead of messing around > >>>> with bus numbers. Note that this is technically no longer platform > >>>> code, so it's harder to justify claiming the static numberspace. > >>> I was allowing control of the bus number with "cell-index" and > >>> i2c_add_numbered_adapter(). > >>> Should I get rid of this and switch to i2c_add_adapter()? > >> Yes. > > > > No! If you don't call i2c_add_numbered_adapter() then new-style i2c > > clients will never work on your i2c adapter. > > I thought that was what i2c_new_device() was for?
Sorry, I've not been completely clear. Yes, you can use i2c_new_device() on an adapter that has been added with i2c_add_adapter(). However, this requires that you have a reference to that i2c_adapter, which is usually not the case with system-wide I2C buses. Embedded platforms would rather use i2c_add_numbered_adapter(), give a list of chips to i2c_register_board_info() and let i2c-core instantiate them. i2c_new_device was primarily meant for multimedia adapters. > By handling all the device tree stuff in the driver, it acts more like > an add-on adapter than a platform device. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
