Hi Johannes,
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:34:44 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
My new approach doesn't auto-load anything. Here we go, what you think? This time there is no logic change, I'm really only turning legacy code into new-style i2c code (basically calling i2c_new_device() instead of i2c_attach_client()) and that's about it.
(Once again this is only build-tested and I would like people with the hardware to give it a try.)
Looks reasonable.
static int onyx_create(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, struct device_node *node, int addr) {
- struct i2c_board_info info;
- struct i2c_client *client;
- memset(&info, 0, sizeof(struct i2c_board_info));
- strlcpy(info.type, "aoa_codec_onyx", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
- if (node) {
info.addr = addr;info.platform_data = node;client = i2c_new_device(adapter, &info);- } else {
/* probe both possible addresses for the onyx chip */unsigned short probe_onyx[] = {0x46, 0x47, I2C_CLIENT_END};client = i2c_new_probed_device(adapter, &info, probe_onyx);- }
- if (!client)
return -ENODEV;- list_add_tail(&client->detected, &client->driver->clients);
That list_add looks a little hackish, and wouldn't it be racy?
Yes it is a little hackish, the idea is to let i2c-core remove the device if our i2c_driver is removed (which happens when you rmmod the module). I'll add a comment to explain that. If there are more use cases I might move that to a helper function in i2c-core.
No it's not racy, we're called with i2c-core's main mutex held.
+static const struct i2c_device_id onyx_i2c_id[] = {
- { "aoa_codec_onyx", 0 },
- { }
+}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, onyx_i2c_id);
Should it really export the device table?
(same comments for tas)
No, that's a leftover, I intended to remove it but forgot. It's gone now. That being said, it's useless, but I don't think it would hurt.
It'll be until mid next week that I can test anything.
OK, thanks.