> I do not know of any real devices as of today (all my tests have been > done with a dummy/fake I3C slaves emulated with a slave IP), I see. > spec clearly describe what legacy/static addresses are for and one of > their use case is to connect an I3C device on an I2C bus and let it act > as an I2C device. OK. That makes it more likely. > Unless you want your device (likely a sensor) to be compatible with both > I3C and I2C so that you can target even more people. Right. My question was if this is a realistic or more academic scenario. > I'm perfectly fine with the I3C / I2C framework separation. The only > minor problem I had with that was the inaccuracy of the > sysfs/device-model representation: we don't have one i2c and one i3c > bus, we just have one i3c bus with a mix of i2c and i3c devices. I understand that. What if I2C had the same seperation between the "bus" and the "master"?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
