On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 02:51:18PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 02:44:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > > I've tried to fix this for DT-only I2C devices > > > and this very driver was the reason. > > > > > But a tiresome regression due to drivers relying on this > > > i2c_device_id not being NULL and inability to remove it from the I2C > > > core without refactoring the world ensued, see: > > > commit c80f52847c50109ca248c22efbf71ff10553dca4 > > > > Oh, that was the change... > > > > > Reverted in: > > > commit 661f6c1cd926c6c973e03c6b5151d161f3a666ed > > > > > For this reason I think: > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-next&m=137148411231784&w=2 > > > > > I have tentatively given up getting pure DT I2C drivers > > > to probe, I don't think I have the whole picture, but > > > Wolfram has serious doubts about this and say we have > > > to be careful .... > > > > > Wolfram, do you have some ideas on how we should > > > proceed or ar you happy with merging this as-is? > > > > I'd have expected that it should be possible to change things such that > > the change in the core doesn't produce any change in behaviour for > > existing drivers. Can we not change the patch so that i2c_match_id() > > copes with getting a NULL id_table? Something like this: > > I hacked something like this after Linus posted his approach. However, I > found out that run time instanciating ('new_device' file) needs an > id_table. I wasn't to keen on disabling the feature for dt-only drivers. > That's where I stopped, due to lack of time. So in the mean time are you happy with this "dummy" approach? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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
