Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] Documentation/i2c: sync docs with current state of i2c-tools.




On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> interface.

Ok, sounds good.  I'll send a revised patch set reverting this block.

(also, did I send the v3 patch series threaded correctly?)

>
> --
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support