Re: [PATCH V3 1/5] i2c: Add irq_gpio field to struct i2c_client, i2c_board_info.

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 11:24:04AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote at Friday, September 02, 2011 3:25 AM:
> > Hi Jonathan,
> > 
> > On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:19:24 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On 09/02/11 07:56, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > Stephen,
> > > >
> > > > Can you please fix your e-mail client / system / whatever so that your
> > > > patch series are no longer sent duplicated?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu,  1 Sep 2011 16:04:27 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > >> Some devices use a single pin as both an IRQ and a GPIO. In that case,
> > > >> irq_gpio is the GPIO ID for that pin. Not all drivers use this feature.
> > > >> Where they do, and the use of this feature is optional, and the system
> > > >> wishes to disable this feature, this field must be explicitly set to a
> > > >> defined invalid GPIO ID, such as -1.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> v3: Also add the field to i2c_board_info, and copy the field from
> > > >>     i2c_board_info to i2c_client upon instantiation
> > > >
> > > > I don't get the idea. The i2c core doesn't make any use of the field,
> > > > and that field will only be used by a few drivers amongst the 420+
> > > > i2c drivers in the tree. This looks like a waste of memory. What's wrong
> > > > with including the new field in the private platform or arch data
> > > > structure for drivers which need it?
> > >
> > > Why not make it platform data for now and 'if' it becomes way more common
> > > (probably won't) we can always propose adding as a general field at a later
> > > date.
> > 
> > Yes, this sounds like a much more reasonable approach.
> 
> BTW, if that's the direction that's decided, just take the first version
> of the patchset I posted, plus Jonathan Cameron's subsequent patch to
> modify ak8975 to accept GPIO ID through platform data.

I don't know which patchset that would be, can you please just resend
what you want applied so that I know I get the correct one?

thanks,

greg k-h