On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:38:23 +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not about hacking, it can be done cleanly. Just have the adapter > > driver code check for information in the platform data, and if class > > information is provided, use that instead of the default value. Or if > > all users will provide the information, don't even have a default in > > the driver. Again, the class flags are a (needed) mechanism, the policy > > is left for driver authors and platform maintainers to establish. > > Ah OK I see now. > > On v2.6.23 i2c-gpio.c had no I2C_CLASS_HWMON flag set and > had no way to pass this info from platform board. > > But on v2.6.27 it is now set whatever the platforms. > > Wouldn't it have been better to allow the platform code to pass this type > information through the 'i2c_gpio_platform_data' structure for example ?
If you have a need for that, sure. If you don't, that's making the code more complex for no good reason. I expect I2C_CLASS_HWMON to be removed from that driver soon. Now that almost all hwmon drivers have been converted to support instantiated I2C devices, and given that all users of i2c-gpio are embedded architectures with platform code, it should be no longer needed. But again I am leaving it to whoever is actually using this driver to decide what is best for them. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
