On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Nikolaus Voss <nikolaus.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Nikolaus Voss >> <nikolaus.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > [snip] > >> But this discussion isn't really related to your patch. I think is >> correct but just said that (b) wasn't a justification to leave the I2C >> table, points (a) and (c) are though. I won't really be convinced that >> the fallback is the correct thing to do or even a good idea. > > > I didn't want to annoy you, I just wanted to understand why you think > fallback is such a bad thing that you call it a bug. And I see, it has its > drawbacks ;-). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clarify this, > Oh, I'm not annoyed, sorry if I sounded that way. What I tried to say is that I've a strong opinion on this and won't be convinced otherwise :) So for me is a bug because that would mean that either an entry is missing in an OF device table or a DTS has a node with a compatible string without a vendor prefix. > Niko > > [snip] > Best regards, Javier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
