On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:02:03 -0700, Sam Hansen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:24:57 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 02:33:42PM -0700, Sam Hansen wrote: > >> > - Not meant to be called directly; instead, use the access functions > >> > - below. > >> > + If possible, use the provided i2c_smbus_* methods described below in favor > >> > + of issuing direct ioctls. > >> > >> Why this change? > > > > I'm also not sure if "in favor of" is right. "instead of" would sound > > better to me, but I'm no native English speaker, I could be wrong. > > Sounds good, I'll adopt "instead of". Regarding Wolfram's earlier > comment, as an engineer, requiring an out-of-tree library to build > drivers felt a little off. I can revert this section if you want, > just let me know. The i2c dev interface, and the overlaying library, are used by user-space applications. This has nothing to do with "building drivers", and makes your "out-of-tree" objection irrelevant. I doubt libi2c is the only user-space library building on top of a kernel interface. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
