Hi Javier,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:25 AM Javier Martinez Canillas
<javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/31/19 9:44 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Hi Javier,
> >> The other option is to remove i2c_of_match_device() and don't make OF match
> >> to fallback to i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(). This is what happens in the ACPI
> >> case, since i2c_device_match() just calls acpi_driver_match_device() directly
> >> and doesn't have a wrapper function that fallbacks to sysfs matching.
> >>
> >> In this case an I2C device ID table would be required if the devices have to
> >> be instantiated through sysfs. That way the I2C table would be used both for
> >> auto-loading and also to match the device when it doesn't have an of_node.
> >
> > That would probably mean that only a minority of drivers will not add an I2C
> > device ID table because it is easy to add an you get the sysfs feature?
> >
>
> I believe so yes.
> As Masahiro-san mentioned, this approach will still require to add a new macro
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c_of, bar_of_match) so the OF device table is used twice.
>
> One to expose the "of:N*T*Cfoo,bar" and another one to expose it as "i2c:bar".
>
> I expect that many developers would miss adding this macro for new drivers that
> are DT-only and so sysfs instantiation would not work there. So whatever is the
> approach taken we should clearly document all this so drivers authors are aware.
You could add a new I2C_MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() that adds both, right?
Makes it a little bit easier to check/enforce this.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
