Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 2.6.25] i2c: adds support for i2c bus on Freescale CPM1/CPM2 controllers

From: Jochen Friedrich <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:48:27 +0100

Hi Olof,

> And even if you DO decide to go that route, guess what? You need a
> translation table just as with (3) anyway!

True.

>>>> 3. use a glue layer with a translation map.
>>> In my opinion this is an OK solution since the same information has to
>>> be added somewhere already anyway -- eiither to the drivers or to this
>>> translation table. It should of course be an abstacted shared table,
>>> preferrably contained under the i2c source directories since several
>>> platforms and architectures might share them.
>> I could think of a mixture between 2. and 3.:
>>
>> Using the compatible attribute with the manufacturer stripped off as I2c name by default
>> and using an exception table. For now, the struct i2c_driver_device would currently only
>> need one entry ("dallas,ds1374", "rtc-ds1374").
> 
> You still need the translation table, you're just flattening the
> namespace to one string instead of two, the same information still has
> to be encoded. I can't see what the benefit of this approach compared to
> the other one is. "dallas,ds1374" already only has one translation entry
> in the table?

As soon as http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/2008-January/002752.html has been
applied, one could get rid of all entries where the I2c (alias) name can be obtained from
the OF name just by stripping the manufacturer.

Thanks,
Jochen