Hi Jean, > Eeeek. The patch you mention here is only the conversion of ONE driver. > It is absolutely not relevant as to what the general rule is.
Sorry, i must have misunderstood you then. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=af294867a52bf718df835a688e8c786d550bee26#patch9 is the same, my original patch listed all four supported chips in there (saa7126, saa7127, saa7128 and saa7129) while only one made it into the driver... > Jochen, I am very surprised that you dare drawing conclusions based on > one random patch of mine. And I am unhappy that you even claim that I > took some decision when I definitely did not. Maybe I draw wrong conclusions from the discussion with Jon Smirl then. > I can't comment on the specific issue at hand as I am not familiar with > it, but overall Jon appears to be right. Listing individual chips in > id_table is the standard way to go. That's even the very reason why we > decided to add this id_table to i2c_driver, instead of matching on the > driver name as we were doing before. I definitely agree here. Thanks, Jochen _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
