Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2015, 08:59:28 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: > 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? if you had read the footnotes you would know :-) Our usecase is connect an embeedded controller via i2c to the host soc, similar to cros-ec, but here the ec is the i2c master. The ec connects keyboard, mouse, pwrmngt, and other stuff, for which the drivers are best implemented in kernel code AFAIK. Marc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
