On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Mark Brown
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:14:58PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Simon Glass [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

It was originally done separately but I think it was felt that this
was overly complex. Olof can you please comment on this?

quoted

it is indeed not controller specific per se, but we are unaware of any
other platform/driver using it. So, it seemed reasonable to implement
it in the driver as long as we have only one user; if another one
comes along it's of course better to move it to the common i2c code.

quoted

At least that was my opinion at the time. I could be convinced
otherwise if someone else has strong opinions on the matter.

This sort of approach is half the reason SPI ended up being so fun...  I
suspect if you look hard enough you'll find that this is just the first
time someone tried to upstream such a scheme.  This is all especially
true for the DT bindings, even if the implementation is driver local for
now it'd be better to define generic bindings.

Ok, sounds like we might as well make it generic then. Naveen?


-Olof