On 10/10/2016 18:26, Warner Losh wrote: > I see no reason not to start the table right away based on > smbios.sys.product and other criteria. I don't think we need all the > matches that Linux uses, but we can expand the table if we find it so. > Why have a stop gap that's a table that we kludge together when the > real table is of comparable difficulty and wouldn't need to be > reworked.
One simple reason for me personally. I do not have the hardware and I am not particularly interested in it. I am interested only in cleaning up the smbus interface and moving ig4iic to iicbus. I want to get done with that as quickly as possible and my goal is just that the result is not worse than the current code. I am sure that people who are more interested than me can make the code much better. > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Michael Gmelin <gre...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:35:22 +0300 >> Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >>> On 09/10/2016 23:22, Warner Losh wrote: >>>> There seems to be enough information present in the smbios data to >>>> know what devices are at what addresses. Perhaps we should use it as >>>> much as possible in well controlled situations to move this >>>> knowledge into the OS. >>> >>> So, I was thinking about maybe doing something like this to preserve >>> the status quo, to avoid requiring manual hints and to lay a >>> foundation for the proper Chromebook I2C slave discovery: >>> [snip] -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"