[i2c] [patch 2.6.21-rc3-git +i2c] switch at91 to new-style i2c drivers

[David Brownell]

On Sunday 11 March 2007 4:32 am, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:56:03 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 March 2007 12:33 pm, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > 
> > > >  
> > > > +/* work with "modprobe at91_i2c" from hotplugging or coldplugging */
> > > > +MODULE_ALIAS("at91_i2c");
> > > 
> > > What is it useful for?
> > 
> > Mostly coldplugging.  The general rule has some startup agent
> > scanning /sys/devices and then doing a "modprobe $(cat modalias)"
> > for any device that doesn't have a driver link.  Since the
> > name of that module is "i2c-at91", which doesn't match the
> > driver name (which does match the device name) such a modprobe
> > would fail without the MODULE_ALIAS directive.
> 
> Why were the driver and module given different names in the first
> place? ;)

AT91 code standardized on an "at91_" module prefix, while
I2C code standardized on an "i2c_" module prefix.  I'll let
you and Andrew duke it out.  ;)


> > Better would be to not include the type name in that macro.  Judging
> > by that small sample, it's not needed often enough.
> 
> 3/7 in this patch, so indeed it's questionable whether we want to
> include it the macro. It's up to you - but we have to decide ourselves
> before people start converting their platforms. Not including it has
> the advantage that we get rid of these "" which confused me.
> 
> > > Also, I guess it's a matter of personal taste, but:
> > > 
> > > static struct i2c_board_info __initdata dk_i2c_devices[] = {
> > > 	{ I2C_BOARD_INFO("ics1523", 0x26, "") },
> > > 	{ I2C_BOARD_INFO("x9429", 0x28, "") },
> > > 	{ I2C_BOARD_INFO("at24c", 0x50, "24c1024") },
> > 
> > Except that the at24c lines are going to need to pass
> > some platform_data, so it won't fit on one line; there
> > will be the basic info, then another line.
> 
> Good point again...

Refreshed patches will address both those issues.

- Dave