On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:32 AM Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > But I still have the feeling that the problem is not solved at the > > > > right place. In i2c_new_device() we are storing parts of the fields of > > > > struct i2c_board_info, and when resetting the irq we are losing > > > > information. This patch solves that, but I wonder if the IRQ should > > > > not be 'simply' set in i2c_device_probe(). This means we also need to > > > > store the .resources of info, but I have a feeling this will be less > > > > error prone in the future. > > > > > > > > But this is just my guts telling me something is not right. I would > > > > perfectly understand if we want to get this merged ASAP. > > > > > > > > So given that the code is correct, this is my: > > > > Reviewed-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > But at least I have expressed my feelings :) > > > > > > Which I can relate to very much. I see the code solves the issue but my > > > feeling is that we are patching around something which should be handled > > > differently in general. > > > > > > Is somebody willing to research this further? > > > > > > Thanks for your input. > > > > > > > I would be willing to have more of a look at it but am slightly > > nervous I am not right person as all the systems I currently work > > with are DT based so don't really exemplify the issue at all. > > Thank you! Well, I'll be there, too. Discussing, reviewing, testing. And > if we have Benjamin for that on board as well, then I think we have a > good start for that task :) Others are more than welcome to join, too, > of course. > I'm also more familiar with device-tree (just came across this on my personal laptop) but happy to review and test at the risk of learning something.
