On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:12:57 +0200, Richard Röjfors wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > I am now convinced your proposed implementation makes sense for your > > specific need (which is relatively rare, which is why i2c-core doesn't > > handle it.) And contrary to what I first wrote, this doesn't need to be > > moved to i2c-core: this is specific enough that I'd rather let the code > > live in the bus driver (i2c-ocores) for now, and only if at least two > > other bus drivers need the same, consider moving it to i2c-core. > > > > So if you fix the minor objection Ben had about your patch and resend > > it, I think we can merge that. > > Will do. > > > Oh, and I also believe your driver > > should call i2c_unregister_device() on removal, for symmetry. > > Isn't better to leave that to i2c_del_adapter? Otherwise we need to store a list > of the I2C-clients returned by i2c_new_device. Err, you're right. I tend to forget that the parameters passed to i2c_unregister_device() differ from those passed to i2c_new_device(). Maybe we'd need i2c_unregister_device_by_addr() or something. In the meantime, yes, just leave it to i2c_del_adapter() to clean up the remaining clients. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
