Hi Jaako, > > My best bet is to introduce another binding "single-master" which says > > clearly that we are the only bus master on that bus. > > > > Both bindings missing means then "unclear". > > > > I think this matches reality best. > > > > Opinions? > I agree that this sounds like the best option if original binding > can't be used, even though it can also be a bit confusing to have 2 > similar bindings. I think it becomes understandable if we emphasize that "no bindings" means "unclear". We need to document it. > How would both bindings existing simultaneously be interpreted? Maybe > both existing simultaneously should be considered as an invalid > configuration, so that it would be enough to just check the one you > need? The other option would be to treat both existing similarly to > neither existing, which would require the driver to always check both > if checking one. I am clearly for saying that this is an illegal combination. I'd hope this can be expressed in a YAML binding. Yet, my research didn't give me an answer. Adding Rob and DT list to CC. Question is: Can we check if the boolean bindings "multi-master" and "single-master" are not applied at the same time? Any other combination is okay, i.e. just one of them or none of them. > Should the new single-master binding also be a general binding for all > I2C drivers or a binding just defined for the XIIC driver? Having it It should definately be global. Thanks, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
