On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:53:15 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:19:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > In the ACPI namespace we have device nodes and serial interfaces below them. > > In the above case we see that a single device node supports two different > > interfaces and in that case we probably should create two different > > struct i2c_adapter objects for the same ACPI device node. > > > > Mika, what do you think? > > I agree. > > Only problem I see is that then we have two I2C adapter devices with the > same ACPI ID (and hence the same i2c_client->name). I wonder what the I2C > core thinks about that. I2C core fears that you're mixing up everything ;) I2C adapter devices are struct i2c_adapter aka i2c-0, i2c-1 etc. i2c_client is for slave devices. There's nothing wrong with i2c_clients sharing ->name, that's even how device driver matching is achieved. The uniqueness of i2c_clients is on their bus_id which is the combination of i2c adapter number and slave address (e.g. 0-0050) i2c_adapter->name should, OTOH, be unique. In i2c bus drivers we usually append the base I/O address at the end of the name to guarantee that. ACPI will have to come up with something similar. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
