On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 09:43:58AM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 19:43:23 +0200 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 07:28:20PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > On 18/01/2023 18:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:40:24PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: ... > > > Can you clarify what you mean here? > > > > > > The i2c_clients are not aware of the i2c-atr. They are normal i2c clients. > > > The FPD-Link drivers are aware of the ATR, as the FPD-Link hardware contains > > > the ATR support. > > > > Can't that hardware be represented as I2C adapter? In such case the ATR specifics > > can be hidden from the client (drivers). > > > > I'm worrying about code duplication and other things that leak into drivers as > > ATR callbacks. > > Which callbacks do you refer to? i2c_atr_ops? I don't think we can do > without the attach/detach_client ones, it's where the driver-specific > implementation is hooked for the generic ATR infra to call it. > > However now I noticed the select/deselect ops are still there. IIRC > they are not used by any driver and in the past the plan was to just > remove them. Tomi, do you think there is a good reason to keep them? > > > It might be that I didn't get how hw exactly functioning on this > > level and why we need those callbacks. > > As far as "how hw exactly works", in case you haven't seen that, the > best explanation I was able to give is in my ELCE 2019 talk, at minute > ~22. It's a 2-3 minute watch. The slides have pointers to other talks > and discussion. Probably I have missed the URL in the discussion, care to resend? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
