On 03/11/2022 14:13, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
On 11/3/22 13:50, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
Hi Rob,
On 02/11/2022 19:26, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 03:20:27PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
+
+ i2c-alias-pool:
Something common or could be? If not, then needs a vendor prefix.
I'll have to think about this. It is related to the i2c-atr, so I think
it might be a common thing.
I'd say this should be common. Where the i2c-atr properties should live
is another question though. If the I2C-atr stays as a genericly usable
component - then these bindings should be in a file that can be
referenced by other I2C-atr users (like the UB960 here).
Yep. All the links, link, serializer and alias nodes/properties are new
things here, and I guess these could be used by other deser-ser systems.
That said, I don't have any experience with other systems.
// snip
+
+ i2c-alias:
Vendor prefix.
+ description: |
+ The i2c address used for the serializer. Transactions
to this
+ address on the i2c bus where the deserializer resides are
+ forwarded to the serializer.
+
+ rx-mode:
Vendor prefix. And so on... >
Yes, I totally missed these.
I think the i2c-alias might need to be common as well?
Perhaps...
I was also thinking that the serializer addresses could be taken from
the i2c-alias-pool. But maybe that's not a good idea, as the
serializer-access and remote-peripheral-access are a bit different (e.g.
no ATR when accessing the serializer).
And I was thinking that, at least here, the alias addresses can be
"anything", so they could be reserved dynamically at runtime, without
any predefined aliases. But that might be a bit confusing to the user.
Tomi
