Re: [RFC 0/4] platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Pass ACPI fwnode to instantiated i2c-clients

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:33 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/5/20 11:38 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:00 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

> >> But before coming to the conclusion that i2c-multi-instantiate
> >> would not work I had already written this series. Since this might
> >> be useful for some other case in the future I'm sending this out
> >> as a RFC now, mostly so that it gets added to the archives.
> >
> > I think they are in pretty good shape (only the 4th required a bit of
> > attention).
>
> FWIW I agree with the changes which you suggest for the 4th patch.
>
> > Please, send as non-RFC and also Cc Heikki (just in case if he has
> > comments wrt INT3515).
>
> But do we really want to land these changes, while ATM we do not
> really have any need for them ?  Esp. the
>
> "platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Pass ACPI fwnode to instantiated I2C-clients"
>
> Change is not without a chance of regressions. The acpi_device_is_first_physical_node()
> behavior surprised me a bit while working on the BOSC0200 changes. So I'm not
> 100% sure I have managed to see / think of all implications of this change.

I think in general the direction to switch to fwnode is a good one. I
was thinking about moving i2c core to use swnodes in which case they
will utilize fwnode pointer. But it might have complications, you are
right.

> Heikki do you now (or in the near future) need access to the fwnode for
> the TypeC controllers handled by the i2c-multi-instantiate code ?
>
> Note that if we do decide to move forward with this set, it should probably
> be merged in its entirety by Wolfram as it also makes i2c-core changes
> (or Wolfram could just merge the i2c-core change and provide an immutable
> branch for me to merge into pdx86/for-next.
>
> And then your (Andy's) cleanup series can be applied on top of this once merged.

Fine to me.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux