On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 08:31:30PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > On 2/7/22 4:39 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > The bindings are ABI, it doesn't seem like a good idea to add new ABI as > > a temporary bodge. > The bindings are supposed to describe hardware, thus it's natural to extend > them, I believe there is a trilemma in this particular case: > 1) add optional vbus-supply property to all I2C master controllers or I2C > busses in case of multiple I2C busses managed by a single controller, > 2) add optional vbus-supply property to all I2C slave devices, If you add a named supply to all I2C controllers or devices then if any of them have an actual vbus supply there will be a namespace collision. > 3) ignore peculiarities of particular (multiple in fact) PCB designs and > a necessity of adding a regulator finely described as a pull-up for I2C > bus lines. There's also the option of representing this as a separate thing on or part of the bus.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
