Hi Wolfram, On Nov 07 2016 or thereabouts, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:10:40PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > > The current SMBus Host Notify implementation relies on .alert() to > > relay its notifications. However, the use cases where SMBus Host > > Notify is needed currently is to signal data ready on touchpads. > > > > This is closer to an IRQ than a custom API through .alert(). > > Given that the 2 touchpad manufacturers (Synaptics and Elan) that > > use SMBus Host Notify don't put any data in the SMBus payload, the > > concept actually matches one to one. > > I see the advantages. The only question I have: What if we encounter > devices in the future which do put data in the payload? Can this > mechanism be extended to handle that? I guess I haven't convinced you with my answer. Is there anything I can do to get this series in v4.10 or do you prefer waiting for v4.11? Cheers, Benjamin > > > > > Benefits are multiple: > > - simpler code and API: the client will just have an IRQ, and > > nothing needs to be added in the adapter beside internally > > enabling it. > > - no more specific workqueue, the threading is handled by IRQ core > > directly (when required) > > - no more races when removing the device (the drivers are already > > required to disable irq on remove) > > - simpler handling for drivers: use plain regular IRQs > > - no more dependency on i2c-smbus for i2c-i801 (and any other adapter) > > - the IRQ domain is created automatically when the adapter exports > > the Host Notify capability > > - the IRQ are assign only if ACPI, OF and the caller did not assign > > one already > > - the domain is automatically destroyed on remove > > - fewer lines of code (minus 20, yeah!) > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for keeping at it! > -- 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
