Re: [PATCH 0/3] capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1642 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:42:51AM -0700, Russ Dill wrote:
> >> browse through various detect functions, yes, some of them key off an
> >> ID, but a lot of them just check various registers to see if certain
> >> bits are zero, or certain bits are one. A lot of I²C devices I've
> >> dealt with have no good way of probing them, especially GPIO chips
> >> (you'll notice none of the I²C GPIO expanders have detect functions)
> >
> > it doesn't mean it can't be done.
> 
> Really? Please, do tell how you would write a detect function for a
> PCA9534. It has 4 registers, an input port registers, an output port
> register, a polarity inversion register, and a configuration register.

read them and match to their reset values, perhaps ?

> And don't forget, since we are probing, every detect routine for every
> I²C driver will have to run with every I²C address on every bus,
> possibly with both address formats.

not *every* I2C address. What you say is wrong, a ->detect() method will
only run for those addresses which the device can actually assume.

> >> On top of all this the detect routine does not tell you if the alert
> >> pin is connected to some IRQ, or in the case of a GPIO expander, what
> >> those GPIOs are connected to, etc, etc.
> >
> > so what ? All you want to do with detect is figure out if the far end is
> > who you think it is, not what it's doing.
> 
> If we already knew who was there, we wouldn't need a detect routine.

of course not :-) But the whole discussion has been about not knowing
which capes (and thus which devices) are attached to the bone.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]