On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:50:15 +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > The problem is that at this point in time, only a couple hwmon drivers > > have been converted to new-style i2c. So, dropping the I2C_CLASS_HWMON > > would break most systems. > > > > I have a set of patches converting most hwmon drivers to new-style i2c. > > I plan to send it to Linus later today. Once all drivers are converted, > > everyone can start adding device definitions to platform code. And only > > once this is done for all platforms, you may remove I2C_CLASS_HWMON > > from the i2c-mpc driver. > > Of course. > > > But even then, you can't exclude the possibility that some people want > > to keep relying on the auto-detection mode. In that case, the setting > > I understood that this is only true for the HWMON devices. Why the > special treatment? Not really. There are other I2C_CLASS_* flags, just check <linux/i2c.h>. What makes hwmon a bit different is the historical context. Originally, the hwmon drivers were written for PCs, which have no per-system platform code, so declaring the devices was simply not an option. Additionally, i2c was maintained as part of the lm-sensors project itself. This determined the probe-everything approach that has ruled the i2c subsystem until recently. I've spent (with a few other developers) the past few years drawing a clear separation between i2c and hwmon, and now making it possible to declare i2c devices where possible. This is a lot of work if you want to do this without breaking any system out there (which is my case.) > > of the I2C_CLASS_HWMON flag should become an attribute of each i2c-mpc > > device. > > Yep, as probing might not be acceptable in some cases, I makes sense to > add a property to suppress probing: It'd rather make no-probing the default if possible. My understanding is that all systems using i2c-mpc should have proper platform data. But then again, that's not really my business. The decision is left to the actual users of this i2c bus driver. -- Jean Delvare
