On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:34:14 +0200
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:11:44 +0200
>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Boris Brezillon
>> > <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I just realized I forgot to add a "depends on I2C" in the I3C Kconfig
> entry. Indeed, I'm unconditionally calling functions provided by the
> I2C framework which have no dummy wrapper when I2C support is disabled.
> I could of course conditionally compile some portion of the I3C
> framework so that it still builds when I2C is disabled but I'm not sure
> it's worth the trouble.
>
> This "depends on I2C" should also solve the I2C+I3C driver issue, since
> I2C is necessarily enabled when I3C is.
>
> Am I missing something?
That should solve another part of the problem, as a combined driver then
just needs 'depends on I3C'.
On top of that, the i3c_driver structure could also contain callback
pointers for the i2c subsystem, e.g. i2c_probe(), i2c_remove() etc.
When the i2c_probe() callback exists, the i3c layer could construct
a 'struct i2c_driver' with those callbacks and register that under the
cover. This would mean that combined drivers no longer need to
register two driver objects.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
