On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Briefly looking into ACPI tables we have and mechanisms that we can >> use in ACPI case, I doubt we may apply all the ideas, probably some of >> them, though I didn't get yet where to read about in details. What I >> could say now is that the patch provided by Bin Gao is definitely no >> go. > > Laurent explained to me what V4L did and now does. It used to be the way > tha V4L drivers did register I2C slaves according to platform_data. Now, > with DT the slaves get instanciated earlier, so they now use notifiers > to know when the slaves are in place. Something like this should > probably be done here, too, instead of unregistering and re-registering. Yes, seems right way to go. I think ACPI case can use V4L2 async API somehow, though it has its own event model. I'll talk to Sakari Ailus to sync. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- 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
