> Can you split this into two different email messages, both as patches
> that I can apply to the kernel tree? That makes it a world easier to
> apply them.
Will do.
> > + static struct i2c_driver foo_driver = {
> > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > + .name = "Foo version 2.3 driver",
> > + .id = I2C_DRIVERID_FOO, /* usually from i2c-id.h */
>
> Why is this needed anymore?
I don't say it is. The document is about what is, not about what should
be ;) I don't know why ID's were given in the first place, so I can't
tell you wether we should keep them or not. If you wan't to get rid of
them in 2.6, go for it. If it proves to be safe, I suppose we'll
backport to CVS/2.4.
> > + .flags = I2C_DF_NOTIFY,
>
> Are there any usages of this field besides the I2C_DF_NOTIFY? In a
> quick grep, it looks like everyone sets this value, so why even have
> this field at all?
i2c-dev has I2C_DF_DUMMY instead, so I wouldn't remove it.
--
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
