> One thing where we need your help as a I2C maintainer is how to represent an > i2c slave device using device-tree. You may remember our discussion in the > past from here [1] where you suggested to just make a slave client by its > compatible name. Stephen Warren from NVIDIA raised some concerns about this > solution because it may not be appropriate in all possible future cases (which > is what a proper device-tree representation should take care off). He instead > suggested to mark a slave client by adding some flag to the reg property, to > be able to handle a situation where both master client and slave client have > the same i2c bus address forming a loopback (e.g. for testing purpose) on the > same bus. More details here [2]. > > I hope with this post I can join the different discussions somehow so we are > able to find a common sense which is acceptable for all. I'll have a look again for 4.2.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
