Fixing Dave's email. It was mis-spelled earlier. On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Felipe Balbi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] >
-- Best Regards, Felipe Balbi [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
