On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:40:44PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > I don't have the bandwidth for a full review right now. However, I > > > already wanted to tell you guys that my gut feeling is that this > > > protocol is quite far away from I2C. P2WI was already at the edge. > > > Maybe there is a better place for such custom stuff? I dunno yet. > > > > That's unfortunate, especially since it looks closer to SPI than what > > P2WI even was. > > SPI? I assume you mean I2C. Can you elaborate your reasoning? Yeah, I obviously meant I2C, sorry. P2WI had no address. It was a single-device bus. However, the way it communicated with the device was very close to I2C, apart from a parity bit instead of the ACK. From that regard, RSB is a multiple device bus, using addresses, just like I2C. The way it communicates is basically the one used by P2WI. So really, it just is more I2C-alike than P2WI has ever been. > > What would be your suggestion? > > Let me quote: > > "I don't have the bandwidth for a full review right now... I dunno > yet." Good thing that we are not talking about a full review then, but more a philosophical discussion. Thanks! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
