Hello Geert,
On 8/6/19 9:22 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 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.
>
Right, we could add a macro for that. Although it should probably be called
I2C_OF_MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() or something like that since is specific to OF.
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement
Red Hat
