Hi Andy, On Friday 12 July 2013 14:29:16 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. Do you have any pointer to the relevant parts of the ACPI specification ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
