Re: [PATCH, RFC] Earlier I2C initialization

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:11:30AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:55:07 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > Why don't you simply initialize the drivers in question with
> > > subsys_initcall()? That's what i2c-pnx, i2c-omap, i2c-davinci and
> > > tps65010 are doing at the moment.
> > 
> > If they happen to sit outside the I2C tree and *before* it in
> > link order, things will misbehave.
> 
> Well, i2c system bus drivers shouldn't sit outside of the I2C tree, so
> that's not a problem. If you start accepting that drivers live at
> random places in the source tree, then there's simply no way to get
> things right.

That's simply not a realistic view.  As I've already pointed out,
framebuffer devices have I2C busses for reading the DDC information
from monitors.  These I2C bus drivers live in drivers/video.

Video grabbers have I2C busses for controlling, eg, tuners and video
decoders.  These live in drivers/media.

If I follow your argument, would you like cyber2000fb.c to be moved
entirely from drivers/video into drivers/i2c/busses because it contains
an i2c bus driver?  Clearly not.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/