Re: [PATCH] Documentation/i2c: sync docs with current state of i2c-tools.
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 20:49:37 +0200
- From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/i2c: sync docs with current state of i2c-tools.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:02:03 -0700, Sam Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:24:57 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 02:33:42PM -0700, Sam Hansen wrote:
> >> > - Not meant to be called directly; instead, use the access functions
> >> > - below.
> >> > + If possible, use the provided i2c_smbus_* methods described below in favor
> >> > + of issuing direct ioctls.
> >> Why this change?
> > I'm also not sure if "in favor of" is right. "instead of" would sound
> > better to me, but I'm no native English speaker, I could be wrong.
> Sounds good, I'll adopt "instead of". Regarding Wolfram's earlier
> comment, as an engineer, requiring an out-of-tree library to build
> drivers felt a little off. I can revert this section if you want,
> just let me know.
The i2c dev interface, and the overlaying library, are used by
user-space applications. This has nothing to do with "building
drivers", and makes your "out-of-tree" objection irrelevant. I doubt
libi2c is the only user-space library building on top of a kernel
SUSE L3 Support