On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:44:17AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:15:30PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > OK that works for me, I'm not in any hurry. > >> > >> Deferring by a merge window isn't going to make it any less painful. > >> Do your best to find all the users that need to be changed. Use a > >> coccinelle search perhaps, but I think it should be merged anyway. > > > > I'll try a bit of my coccinelle-foo today and then decide. > > Thanks Wolfram, much appreciated. I am going to revert that commit. I was thinking back and forth, even playing with the idea to remove the id as a parameter to probe for i2c drivers and let them request the id from the i2c core when needed. But now I found more side-effects. E.g. run-time based instantiation for i2c devices is depending on an id-table. So, for now I keep insisting that an id-table must exist. Looks like DT-only drivers need more thinking and this is too late for 3.11. Regards, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
