On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Placing this firmly back on your plate. I truly hope we don't miss > > another merge-window. > > Nope, we won't. I'll still need a week or so due to other duties. Perfectly reasonable. > > This patch-set has the support of some pretty > > senior kernel maintainers, so I hope acceptance shouldn't be too > > difficult. > > Cool, then they could ack it like Grant did? That surely helps. I was talking about Grant (and Linus - I'll poke him seperately). ;) > > As previously discussed I believe it should be okay for an I2C device > > driver _not_ supply an I2C ID table to match to. > > I agree... > > > The I2C subsystem > > should be able to match via other means, such as via OF tables. The > > blocking factor during our previous conversation was to keep > > registering via sysfs up and running. This set does that. > > ... yet it also should not cause regressions. If you fixed that, sounds > great! > > > After thinking more deeply about the problem, it occurred to me that > > any I2C device driver which uses the sysfs method and issues an > > of_match_device() would also fail their probe(). Bolted on to this > > set is a new, more generic way for these devices to match against > > either of the I2C/OF tables. > > Even better :) I am generally positive with your patchset, but need to > review the implementation. For core stuff, this simply needs more > attention. Agree. Thanks Wolfram. -- 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
