On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:13:32 +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> Jean Delvare said the following:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:19:27 +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> >> could you give it a look?
> >> If you at least ACK the interface, I could do the patch for the
> >> documentation.
> >
> > Come on, which part of "this should be implemented in sysfs" did you
> > not understand? I'm a little tired of you trying to implement it using
> > _all_ other possible ways except the one we agreed on. If you need this
> > feature faster than I can implement it, please stick to the plan and
> > implement it using sysfs. If not, then just stay quiet and wait for it
> > to happen.
>
> Huh - don't bite me!
>
> This step I wanted to discuss next:
> AFAICS I2C subsystem doesn't implement any sysFs-entry itself. They are
> all either from client or device-driver system.
You didn't look carefully then. From i2c-core.c:
static ssize_t
show_adapter_name(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
{
struct i2c_adapter *adap = to_i2c_adapter(dev);
return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", adap->name);
}
static struct device_attribute i2c_adapter_attrs[] = {
__ATTR(name, S_IRUGO, show_adapter_name, NULL),
{ },
};
static struct class i2c_adapter_class = {
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
.name = "i2c-adapter",
.dev_attrs = i2c_adapter_attrs,
};
> I not even dared to ask
> for a comment to this before adding the feature on i2c-dev, a way that
> does not change the visible interface.
What do you think i2c-dev is, if not a visible interface? If we add a
new ioctl to the i2c-dev interface, we have to maintain it forever.
That's not to be done lightly just because you can't wait for you
actual need to be fulfilled by i2c-core.
> I can't wait too long for implementation on sysFs. I'm ready to do it
> now, if we agree on the place where to create the entries, naming and
> interface.
The place is very clearly /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-*, next to the
"name" attribute I quoted above.
The naming and interface are to be discussed. Could be 2 write-only
files, add_device and delete_device, and the most basic syntax I can
think of would be:
echo lm75 0x49 > /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/add_device
echo 0x49 > /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/delete_device
add_device would optionally accept an irq value. As for delete_device,
I am wondering if we should require the chip name as well, for symmetry
with add_device and for safety reasons, or if the above is sufficient.
> What is your time line?
Getting rid of the legacy binding model has higher priority and is far
from being done. I also must take care of Rodolfo's multiplexer
support, which a lot of people have been asking for, and which might as
well be what you really need. The above interface comes next, I can't
give it higher priority as the same can already be achieved today using
module parameters for most drivers.
> Naming IMHO should be probe/remove, parameters could be
No, we can't use probe/remove as these are used for a completely
different meaning in the Linux driver model (and these _are_ misnomers
there, no question about that, but we have to live with it.) Not that
"probe" would be a good name anyway, as you are instantiating a device,
you are not probing for anything.
> "<client-name>,<id>" / "<id>", just as done in i2c-dev implementation,
> if created per adapter.
I'd go with a space instead of comma between parameters, for
consistency with the pci subsystem's "new_id" files.
And it's really <address>, NOT <id>, even though we use the address as
part of the device id internally.
> But where to place?
Answered above, that was the easy part.
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
