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.
Would be better, yes. If we finally decide to add an irq_flags field to the i2c core structures, we'll update the isp1301 driver accordingly. > 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. I agree that it would be great if the isp1301 driver was arch-neutral. But I fail to see how this is related to adding an irq_flags field to struct i2c_board_info and struct i2c_client or not. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
