On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Lee Jones (2022-09-28 03:20:30) > > Wouldn't it make more sense to simply separate the instantiation of > > the 2 I2C devices? Similar to what you suggested [0] in v9. That way > > they can handle their own resources and we can avoid all of the I2C > > dummy / shared Regmap passing faff. > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAE-0n53G-atsuwqcgNvi3nvWyiO3P=pSj5zDUMYj0ELVYJE54Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > You can continue reading the thread[1]. My understanding is it's one > chip that responds on two i2c addresses, thus we don't describe that as > two i2c device nodes in DT. Instead we describe one node and use the > dummy API to make the second i2c device. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yk3NkNK3e+fgj4eG@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ As Mark says, it's probably 2 separate dies that have been encased in the same IC and are otherwise unconnected. Not sure I understand the comment about not requiring another 'struct device'. It will still require that whether it's a platform device or an I2C device, right? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
