On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Ok, sounds good. I'll send a revised patch set reverting this block. (also, did I send the v3 patch series threaded correctly?) > > -- > Jean Delvare > SUSE L3 Support
