Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 6:26 PM Wolfram Sang
<wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One outcome of my dynamic address assignment RFC series[1] was that we
> need a way to describe an I2C bus in DT fully. This includes unknown
> devices and devices requiring multiple addresses. This series implements
> that.
>
> Patches 1+2 do some preparational refactoring. After patch 3, we can
> have child nodes with an address, but no compatible. Those addresses
> will be marked busy now. They are handled by the dummy driver as well,
> but named "reserved" instead of dummy. Patches 4+5 are again some
> preparational refactoring. After patch 6, all addresses in a 'reg' array
> are now blocked by the I2C core, also using the dummy driver but named
> "reserved". So, we can have something like this:
>
> dummy@13 {
Hence should that be "reserved@13"?
> reg = <0x13>, <0x14>;
> };
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
