On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 06:33:44PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > OK - talked with Ville a bit on this and did some of my own research, I > actually think that moving i2c to drm_dp_aux_init() is the right decision for > the time being. The reasoning behind this being that as shown by my previous > work of fixing drivers that call drm_dp_aux_register() too early - it seems > like there's already been drivers that have been working just fine with > setting up the i2c device before DRM registration. > > In the future, it'd probably be better if we can split up i2c_add_adapter() > into an init and register function - but we'll have to talk with the i2c > maintainers to see if this is acceptable w/ them Yeah, that sounds like a better long-term solution. We could leave i2c_add_adapter() in place, since it's already half-way split up into some initialization code and i2c_register_adapter(), so it shouldn't be all that difficult to split out an i2c_init_adapter() so that outside users can do the split setup. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
