Jean Delvare wrote: >>We've been wondering over here at sensors what the point was of unique >>IDs. nobody seemed to use them. > > > I think we have to make a difference between adapters and chips here. It > looks quite obvious that adapters' IDs may have a use (as this is the > case now). What I think Greg was suggesting is that we could drop IDs of > _chip_ drivers, because those will hardly ever get used. > While the i2c_clients_command function does not use the id, in the v3tv module I have a function voodoo3_call_i2c_client (very bottom of /v3tv/voodoo-i2c.c) that does use it. The i2c_clients_command pass the command along to any client on the adapter that has a driver->command. With my version, only the client of interest gets the call. There are two sides to this. On one hand, if a client would respond to a given command, but I don't want it to, I can exclude it. On the other hand, using i2c_clients_command, if I want all clients to recieve the command, one call to i2c_clients_command will suffice. Any way, the change from voodoo3_call_i2c_client to i2c_clients_command is a trivial one for me to make, I've considered it before, therefore driver id's are not critical to me. Cheers, Perry ----- V3TV: http://gilfillan.org:8000/v3tv/ VPX3224: http://gilfillan.org:8000/vpx3224/
