> (I hope I will be excused - at least I was not soliciting anything but > just info and advise, for which in my idealistic judgement there is no > money equivalent, since those are ... priceless. > Of course, this is just my private view and other people might have > different opinion on this subject ). Not sure what you mean here, but we welcome hardware donations ;) > In http://www2.lm-sensors.nu/~lm78/cvs/i2c/doc/summary I see: > .. > Adapter drivers > --------------- > .. > i2c-rpx: RPX board Motorola 8xx I2C device (uses i2c-algo-8xx) > (NOT BUILT BY DEFAULT) > .. > > Does above comment relates to 2.4 or 2.6 or both ? The "NOT BUILD BY DEFAULT" relates to 2.4 only (or more precisely to the version of i2c which is Linux 2.4 compatible). Non-x86 driver receive very little testing (and are not maintained) because none of us has non-x86 hardware to test on. In the facts, i2c and lm_sensors are very x86-centric. > As it was discovered, 2.6 distribution lacks (as far as ppc 8xx is > concerned) > both: i2c-algo-8xx.h and i2c-algo-8xx.c files, which are present in > 2.4 . > > Tom Rini suggested to me to bring both files into Linux 2.6 and to > merge i2c-rpx.c with i2c-algo-8xx.c > into one file (placing it it under the busses subdirectory ? - AP ) - > any opinion on that ? We usually have separate algorithms when one algorithm is shared by several bus drivers. Since it seems that i2c-rpx is the only user of this one, I have no objection to merging i2c-algo-8xx and i2c-rpx. In fact, we don't really care here, the PPC folks can do what they want with their drivers. -- Jean Delvare http://khali.linux-fr.org/
