On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 03:38:20PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:57:51 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:58:30 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > > >>>>> "Wolfram" == Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > >> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.i2c/7171/focus=7244 > > > >> > > > >> Ah, yes, that's the discussion I was looking for, thanks for digging it > > > >> out. My point wasn't totally wrong back then, but Wolfram's is simply > > > >> better, I admit. > > > > > > Wolfram> I agree :) Okay, so I'll update the documentation as well. What about > > > Wolfram> include/linux/gpio-i2cmux.h and its users? I'd like consistency, but > > > Wolfram> renaming header files is not too nice... > > > > > > Indeed. If we were to rename it we should also rename struct > > > gpio_i2cmux_platform_data. > > > > > > I don't feel strongly about it - It will break for existing users, but > > > there's probably not too many of those. Your call. > > > > I see exactly 1 user of <linux/gpio-i2cmux.h> in the upstream kernel > > tree, and that is gpio-i2cmux itself. So I'd say no big deal renaming > > it, and actually if we intend to rename header files and/or structures, > > the sooner the better. > > Wolfram, Peter, any progress here? I think Wolfram was supposed to send > an updated patch but I did not receive anything. -EBUSY :( It *is* on my todo-list, though... -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
