On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 07:52:44AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:47:43 +0300, Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hmm. I think it would be better to avoid calling the probe > > in first place. git diff made the attached patch look more > > confusing than it actually is. Personally I'd eliminate > > all ifdefs from those i2c_board_info structs. > I did the same thing before, but then we're gonna start adding > several i2c_board_info for different hw. I mean, we should > just reuse the code and the driver should know when the device > is not present and stop probing without any problems to the rest > of the system. If the different hw has different devices on the i2c bus, then different i2c_board_info struct should be provided. IIRC i2c_board_info is expected to provide a accurate picture of what i2c devices is connected to the bus. This has been used as a argument to remove detection code from .probe functions. To all the confused i2c list readers, the topic is about should we split n800_i2c_board_info_2 [0] to n800 and n810 specific structs[1] or make the lm8323 configure to err out earlier[2]. [0] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tmlind/linux-omap-2.6.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-n800.c;h=ae85c2c60534820856c8bb0e019be29f2375470b;hb=HEAD#l645 [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/9562 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/9522 "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
