Re: [PATCH V3 1/5] i2c: Add irq_gpio field to struct i2c_client, i2c_board_info.

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Jonathan,

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:19:24 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 09/02/11 07:56, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Stephen,
> > 
> > Can you please fix your e-mail client / system / whatever so that your
> > patch series are no longer sent duplicated?
> > 
> > On Thu,  1 Sep 2011 16:04:27 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> Some devices use a single pin as both an IRQ and a GPIO. In that case,
> >> irq_gpio is the GPIO ID for that pin. Not all drivers use this feature.
> >> Where they do, and the use of this feature is optional, and the system
> >> wishes to disable this feature, this field must be explicitly set to a
> >> defined invalid GPIO ID, such as -1.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> v3: Also add the field to i2c_board_info, and copy the field from
> >>     i2c_board_info to i2c_client upon instantiation
> > 
> > I don't get the idea. The i2c core doesn't make any use of the field,
> > and that field will only be used by a few drivers amongst the 420+
> > i2c drivers in the tree. This looks like a waste of memory. What's wrong
> > with including the new field in the private platform or arch data
> > structure for drivers which need it?
>
> Why not make it platform data for now and 'if' it becomes way more common
> (probably won't) we can always propose adding as a general field at a later
> date.

Yes, this sounds like a much more reasonable approach.

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/