Hello Wolfram,
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:22:16AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 01:37:44PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 02:40:02PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > So users can check in advance if there is slave support.
> > I wonder if the core should check if .{,un}reg_slave is != NULL and
> > automatically set this bit accordingly.
>
> I thought about this, too, but decided against it. Maybe some driver
> doesn't want to make its slave interface public because it is
> specialized for one use-case only (thinking ECs here)? Also, doing it
Hmm, I'd not say this is a valid reason. Sounds like policy in the
kernel?!
Does the framework check for the slave support flag before binding a
slave to the controler? I assume that not, but wonder if it should.
> would be a little inconsistent, since we could do the same for
> I2C_FUNC_I2C when master_xfer is populated. So, let's start simple I'd
> say.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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
