Hi Jonathan, On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:19:24 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 09/02/11 07:56, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Stephen, > > > > Can you please fix your e-mail client / system / whatever so that your > > patch series are no longer sent duplicated? > > > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:04:27 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> Some devices use a single pin as both an IRQ and a GPIO. In that case, > >> irq_gpio is the GPIO ID for that pin. Not all drivers use this feature. > >> Where they do, and the use of this feature is optional, and the system > >> wishes to disable this feature, this field must be explicitly set to a > >> defined invalid GPIO ID, such as -1. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> v3: Also add the field to i2c_board_info, and copy the field from > >> i2c_board_info to i2c_client upon instantiation > > > > I don't get the idea. The i2c core doesn't make any use of the field, > > and that field will only be used by a few drivers amongst the 420+ > > i2c drivers in the tree. This looks like a waste of memory. What's wrong > > with including the new field in the private platform or arch data > > structure for drivers which need it? > > Why not make it platform data for now and 'if' it becomes way more common > (probably won't) we can always propose adding as a general field at a later > date. Yes, this sounds like a much more reasonable approach. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
