lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-s3c2410: Add bus arbitration implementation
On 4 December 2012 05:41, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Mark Brown
> <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:14:58PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> > It was originally done separately but I think it was felt that this
>>> > was overly complex. Olof can you please comment on this?
>>
>>> it is indeed not controller specific per se, but we are unaware of any
>>> other platform/driver using it. So, it seemed reasonable to implement
>>> it in the driver as long as we have only one user; if another one
>>> comes along it's of course better to move it to the common i2c code.
>>
>>> At least that was my opinion at the time. I could be convinced
>>> otherwise if someone else has strong opinions on the matter.
>>
>> This sort of approach is half the reason SPI ended up being so fun... I
>> suspect if you look hard enough you'll find that this is just the first
>> time someone tried to upstream such a scheme. This is all especially
>> true for the DT bindings, even if the implementation is driver local for
>> now it'd be better to define generic bindings.
>
> Ok, sounds like we might as well make it generic then. Naveen?
Thanks for the comments.

Sure, Will send an RFC soon.
>
>
> -Olof
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



--
Shine bright,
(: Nav :)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-04 07:02    [W:0.076 / U:1.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site