Re: qestion about I2C_CLASS_HWMON flag

["Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:38:23 +0200, Francis Moreau wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> 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.
>

OK, thanks a lot for the clarifications
-- 
Francis