Thread (9 messages) 9 messages, 5 authors, 2025-10-21

Re: [PATCH v1 0/2 RESEND] i2c: muxes: Add GPIO-detected hotplug I2C

From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date: 2025-10-21 13:25:31
Also in: linux-i2c, lkml

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 09:32:24AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Hi Svyatoslav,
quoted
Herve and Luca did not come up with anything meaningful, they provided
just a few rough ideas. It will take an inconsiderate amount of time
Well, IIRC they said that your use case can be mapped onto their
approach. Which is meaningful in my book.
quoted
before there will be any consensus between them and schema
maintainers, and even more time would be requited to settle this into
schemas and implement into drivers. Why should I suffer from this? Why
should changes I need be halted due to some incomplete 'ideas'? This
driver uses existing i2c mux framework and fits into it just fine.
I am sorry to bring you bad news, but you need to suffer because this is
how development goes. If I get presented a generic solution (see Herve's
mail) and a specific solution (your driver), for this case I as a
maintainer will prefer the generic solution. Generic solutions need more
time because there are more things to handle, of course. This is typical
for development, I would say, it is not Linux or Free Software specific.

I appreciate that you tackled your issue and were open to share it with
the community. I see the work being done there. However, there are so
many things going on independently that I can't really prevent double
development from happening despite it having a high priority for me. As
soon as I get aware of people working on similar issues, I connect them.
That's what I did here as well.

So, if you want upstream supported I2C hot-plugging, you need to wait
for Luca's and Herve's work being accepted. Or provide a superior
solution. Or, if you want, join the ride. You already have experience in
this field (and hardware plus use case), you would be a very welcome
contributor, I would say.
Agreed.

What really slows things down is when there is only 1 user of a new 
binding. Too many times have I accepted one only for the 2nd user to 
show up right after accepting it and wanting something different. So 
now I just require more than 1 user and it is on the submitter(s) to do 
that. After all, it is their itch, not mine.

Rob
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help