Hi Sang
Thanks for your comments. Please find my reply inline.
On 06/02/2015 09:19 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+static void acpi_i2c_mux_register_devices(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
+ struct device *mux_dev)
+{
+ acpi_handle handle;
+ acpi_status status;
+
+ handle = ACPI_HANDLE(mux_dev);
+ if (!handle)
+ return;
+
+ status = acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, handle, 1,
+ acpi_i2c_add_device, NULL,
+ adap, NULL);
+
+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
+ dev_warn(mux_dev, "mux adapter slave enumeration fails\n");
+}
+#else /* !CONFIG_ACPI */
+static inline void acpi_i2c_mux_register_devices(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
+ struct device *mux_dev) { }
+#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
IMO, this shares too much code with acpi_i2c_register_devices(). And it
pulls in ACPI into mux.c which is not really needed.
Even though mux is a just a virtual adapter without any ACPI ID, Its
slaves are a still actual devices and needs to be enumerated by ACPI. So
think its accptable to include ACPI in mux code. Don't you agree ?
Also ACPI handle code in this function is slightly different from
acpi_i2c_register_devices() code.
What about naming the above function
acpi_i2c_register_devices_from_dev() and let acpi_i2c_register_devices()
If you call this function from i2c-core register device function, then
how will you maintain the hierarchy ? We need some way to indicate that
these devices are under mux adapter right ?
then call it as a helper function, all this in i2c-core.c?
Thanks for your patience BTW...
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Android kernel developer
--
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
