Hello, On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:55:13PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > So what about adding a new property "i2c-slave-reg"? This does not only > prevent the confusion above, but also makes it very clear that this node > is an I2C slave without the need to encode that somehow in the > compatible property (although it probably should be described there as > well, still). I admit I didn't follow the discussions referenced in the footnotes, but I wonder if the slave part should be added to the device tree at all. AFAICT it could (and so should) be completely userspace-defined which slave driver is used on which address. I imagine that for most controllers the bus addresses to use can be chosen more or less freely. So what am I missing? > > 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. > > Thanks for doing this! I changed the subject to maybe raise interest a > bit more. that worked fine :-) Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
