On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:55:31PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> You should probably be using the --no-index option of quilt 0.42 (if you
> are using quilt as I presumed), as I heard Linus doesn't like these
> index lines in the patches he receives.
Ooh, thanks!
> > if (driver->flags & I2C_DF_NOTIFY) {
> > list_for_each(item,&adapters) {
> > adapter = list_entry(item, struct i2c_adapter, list);
> > - driver->attach_adapter(adapter);
> > + if (driver->attach_adapter)
> > + driver->attach_adapter(adapter);
> > + if (driver->detect_client && driver->address_data &&
> > + ((driver->class & adapter->class) ||
> > + driver->class == 0))
> > + i2c_probe(adapter, driver->address_data,
> > + driver->detect_client);
> > }
> > }
>
> Couldn't we check for the return value of driver->attach_adapter()? That
> way this function could conditionally prevent i2c_probe() from being
> run. This is just a random proposal, I don't know if some drivers would
> have an interest in doing that.
Yeah, I was thinking about that too, but I can't think of a reasonable
return code to use. -1 for "don't probe"? Or <0 for "fatal error,
don't touch this bus any more"? Anyway, client drivers will probably
only use one of the two detection methods because if they need to
implement attach_adapter they can just call i2c_probe from there.
> Also, maybe we can put this new code in a separate function to be called
> from both i2c_add_adapter and i2c_add_driver, so as to not duplicate
> code? Or would this be too much overhead? It could be made inline then.
> Again, just a random thought.
Sure, I can do that.
> > --- linux-2.6.13-rc6+gregkh.orig/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients
> > +++ linux-2.6.13-rc6+gregkh/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients
>
> Thanks for the documentation update. However, you didn't update
> i2c/porting-clients accordingly. Could you please?
I didn't think anybody was porting client drivers any more, but if
you're still updating that doc, I can too. :-) -Nathan
