On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:47:14 +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi Jean, > > > > I have a new approach for the isp1301 driver, took your idea > > of adding a new irq_flags member to i2c_boardinfo and i2c_client. > > I said we could do this _if_ many drivers needed this field. I didn't > mean to do it right now... So far I only know of the isp1301 driver > which would need this. And at any rate I'd like to hear David's opinion > before adding a new field to the core i2c structures.
Ok, so I'll prepare other patch based on addind include/i2c/isp1301_omap.h with struct isp1301_platform_data. But still, it makes really much sense adding this field cuz the probability of having different irq flags on different boards is quite high. Also, a driver shouldn't be conditional to an architecture. I mean, isp1301 can be used with any arch, not only with omap. So as much as we can make it platform independent as better driver we get. > > If it's ok for you, i'll also send a patch putting linux-omap and > > linux-mailine isp1301 in sync. > > This would be great, yes. Divergence between trees tend to confuse > developers, often I receive patches which do not apply to my tree > because of this. I already have such patch for both linux-omap and linux-mainline, but it's based on adding irq_flags to i2c_boardinfo and i2c_client. So let's wait Dave's comments ;-) -- Best Regards, Felipe Balbi [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
