Am Sonntag, den 11.12.2016, 23:16 +0100 schrieb Wolfram Sang: > Lucas, > > > Shallow review of DTS files and dpaux drivers let me say that the change > > below has no regressions (the change is untested): > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c > > index 3e6fe82..f91ade1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c > > @@ -1020,7 +1020,6 @@ int drm_dp_aux_register(struct drm_dp_aux *aux) > > aux->ddc.class = I2C_CLASS_DDC; > > aux->ddc.owner = THIS_MODULE; > > aux->ddc.dev.parent = aux->dev; > > - aux->ddc.dev.of_node = aux->dev->of_node; > > > > strlcpy(aux->ddc.name, aux->name ? aux->name : dev_name(aux->dev), > > sizeof(aux->ddc.name)); > > Is this an acceptable approach? It makes sense to me from an I2C PoV. > > I have to say that I second Vladimir's arguments. There shouldn't be any > other I2C devices on DDC, but surely there is somebody somewhere hacking > this bus to do something. Yes, I've convinced myself that this is the better way. Please drop this patch. Regards, Lucas -- 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
