From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263626AbTDDNcq (for ); Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:32:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263547AbTDDNZ5 (for ); Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:25:57 -0500 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([195.224.96.167]:53516 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263530AbTDDNVd (for ); Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:21:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:33:01 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com Subject: Re: i2c_probe() vs i2c_detect() Message-ID: <20030404143301.B25147@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com References: <20030403012307.GA6037@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030403012307.GA6037@kroah.com>; from greg@kroah.com on Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 05:23:07PM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 05:23:07PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > Hi all, > > Can anyone tell me why both i2c_probe() and i2c_detect() are in the > kernel at the same time? They both almost do the same thing, with the > exception being i2c_detect() can handle i2c devices on the isa bus. > > It kind of looks like the older i2c code and drivers used the > i2c_probe() call, while the lm_sensors code used i2c_detect(). > > If there are no objections, I'll merge the two of them, cutting about 2k > out of the kernel :) Once ou're at it you could also try to get rid of the check_region abuse in there :)