Re: [PATCH] Documentation/i2c: sync docs with current state of i2c-tools.
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:32:47 -0700
- From: Sam Hansen <hansens@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: 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
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