On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 19:12:48 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 04:19:20PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > 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) > > Yeah, I mixed I2C adapter and client. Thanks for correcting. > > So if we create one I2C adapter from the platform bus code as we do now and > then for each I2CSerialBus connector we create one I2C client (well, the > one that is created when i2c_new_device() is called), everything should > work, right? Yes. > Then I suggest that we have a list of serial bus resources in the struct > acpi_device and create the I2C clients based on that. > > > 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. > > It should already be unique in case of ACPI. We use ACPI _HID and _UID to > achieve that. Perfect. -- 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
