Jean Delvare wrote at Friday, September 02, 2011 3:25 AM: > 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. BTW, if that's the direction that's decided, just take the first version of the patchset I posted, plus Jonathan Cameron's subsequent patch to modify ak8975 to accept GPIO ID through platform data. -- nvpublic _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
