Hi, On 11/10/20 11:10 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:33 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 11/5/20 11:38 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:00 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > >>>> But before coming to the conclusion that i2c-multi-instantiate >>>> would not work I had already written this series. Since this might >>>> be useful for some other case in the future I'm sending this out >>>> as a RFC now, mostly so that it gets added to the archives. >>> >>> I think they are in pretty good shape (only the 4th required a bit of >>> attention). >> >> FWIW I agree with the changes which you suggest for the 4th patch. >> >>> Please, send as non-RFC and also Cc Heikki (just in case if he has >>> comments wrt INT3515). >> >> But do we really want to land these changes, while ATM we do not >> really have any need for them ? Esp. the >> >> "platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Pass ACPI fwnode to instantiated I2C-clients" >> >> Change is not without a chance of regressions. The acpi_device_is_first_physical_node() >> behavior surprised me a bit while working on the BOSC0200 changes. So I'm not >> 100% sure I have managed to see / think of all implications of this change. > > I think in general the direction to switch to fwnode is a good one. I > was thinking about moving i2c core to use swnodes in which case they > will utilize fwnode pointer. But it might have complications, you are > right. So do you agree to just keep this series in the archives (in case we need it later) for now ? Or would you still like me to post a non RFC version ? Regards, Hans
