On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:14:58PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It was originally done separately but I think it was felt that this > > was overly complex. Olof can you please comment on this? > it is indeed not controller specific per se, but we are unaware of any > other platform/driver using it. So, it seemed reasonable to implement > it in the driver as long as we have only one user; if another one > comes along it's of course better to move it to the common i2c code. > At least that was my opinion at the time. I could be convinced > otherwise if someone else has strong opinions on the matter. This sort of approach is half the reason SPI ended up being so fun... I suspect if you look hard enough you'll find that this is just the first time someone tried to upstream such a scheme. This is all especially true for the DT bindings, even if the implementation is driver local for now it'd be better to define generic bindings.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
