On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 10:28:39PM -0500, Mark M. Hoffman wrote: > Hi again... > > * Mark M. Hoffman <mhoffman at lightlink.com> [2004-11-07 21:47:51 -0500]: > > Whatever we agree are legitimate reasons to cancel detection, I would like > > to add specific documentation for them. I think a case can be made that > > there's *no* legitimate reason for a driver to halt detection that way... > > but I'm sure I'll hear otherwise. As an interface, this interpretation > > of a return value (I failed so badly that you're not allowed to call me > > again) isn't my favorite. > > After working on a patch for a bit... now I hate it. Why does i2c_detect() > need to work that way? > > Back to where I started: anyone mind if I rewrite i2c_detect()? A grep > said that drivers/i2c/chips/*.c are the only callers. Heh, I tried to rewrite it a while ago, and just gave up, it's a mess. Please redo it. Oh, I'm getting rid of all of the "range" variables in the structures right now, so that will affect i2c_detect. I'll have patches in a few hours. thanks, greg k-h
