On 4 December 2012 05:41, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Thanks for the comments. Sure, Will send an RFC soon. > > > -Olof > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Shine bright, (: Nav :) -- 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
