On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 13:02 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi All, > > On 01-07-18 14:23, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Here is more or less a resend of v1 of my second attempt at dealing > > with > > multiple i2c devices being described in a single ACPI fwnode. > > > > The only change is that it has been rebased from v4.17 to v4.18-rc2. > > > > Mika, Andy and Heikki, can you review this please? > > Ping? It would be good to get some sort of resolution for > this problem / this patch-set. My personal opinion is that the imaginary devices which are not part of real hardware in this design is not good. So, to get resolution I would rather to wait for some comments from Mika, Rafael, Wolfram, and maybe others. Esp. for Wolfram's one since it's about how it would be represented in I2C bus. > As mentioned in an earlier reply in this thread, the only alternative > to this patch-set which I see would be to duplicate the list of > ACPI HIDs found in the new drivers/i2c/i2c-multi-instantiate.c > inside code under drivers/acpi and make the acpi code not > skip enumerating devices with these HIDs as platform drivers. > > Then the i2c-multi-instantiate.c driver could become a > platform driver (*) and the I2C_CLIENT_IGNORE_BUSY > flag / hack can go away (at the price of duplicating > the HIDs in 2 places). > > I'm certainly open to taking a shot at doing things that > way, but getting some feedback first and an indication > from the ACPI folks (Mika?) that that would be acceptable > would be nice. > > Regards, > > Hans > > > *) And probably be moved to drivers/platform/x86 -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- 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
