On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:14:58PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > It was originally done separately but I think it was felt that this >> > was overly complex. Olof can you please comment on this? > >> it is indeed not controller specific per se, but we are unaware of any >> other platform/driver using it. So, it seemed reasonable to implement >> it in the driver as long as we have only one user; if another one >> comes along it's of course better to move it to the common i2c code. > >> At least that was my opinion at the time. I could be convinced >> otherwise if someone else has strong opinions on the matter. > > This sort of approach is half the reason SPI ended up being so fun... I > suspect if you look hard enough you'll find that this is just the first > time someone tried to upstream such a scheme. This is all especially > true for the DT bindings, even if the implementation is driver local for > now it'd be better to define generic bindings. Ok, sounds like we might as well make it generic then. Naveen? -Olof -- 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
