On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:49:59AM -0700, Dustin Byford wrote: > I considered it, but I thought a default that fairly closely matches the > old behavior was more convenient. > > On the other hand, leaving it up to the controllers makes it all very > explicit and perhaps simpler to reason about. > > > I could be convinced either way. But, if we move it to the controller > drivers, which ones need the change? > > grep -i acpi drivers/i2c/busses/i2c* > > shows 18 drivers that might care. I'm quite confident the designware I2C is enough for now. Intel uses it for all SoCs with LPSS and I think AMD has the same block for their I2C solution. > > adap->dev.parent = &pdev->dev; > > adap->dev.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node; > > ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&adap->dev, ACPI_COMPANION(&pdev->dev)); > > Interesting, this code isn't in my tree. I wonder why it was added, > what code looks at the acpi companion on the i2c dev? Before my change > it was supposed to be NULL, and it is NULL on every other controller. It is not in any tree. I meant that before b34bb1ee71158d5b it looked something like that :-) -- 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
