On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 12:59:19 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 9:39 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 10:10 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > No. Please, do not remove the I2C ID table. It had already been > > > > discussed a few years ago. > > > > > > > > > Yes, it make sense, as it saves some memory > > > > > > Okay, reading code a bit, it seems that it won't work with purely i2c > > > ID matching. > > > > OK, so you are in agreement that it would be OK to drop the I2C ID table? > > Yes. > > > > So the question here is "Do we want to allow enumeration via sysfs or not?" > > > > Is there some pressing need for it? If not, I guess I'd tend to wait > > until someone needs this support before adding it. > > Depends. Is this device anyhow useful IRL as standalone if > instantiated via sysfs? I think it may be not, so it's unlikely we > want to have sysfs option for it. > So this is what the id table is about :D I guess I should remove it for leds-turris-omnia :D
