On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:50:54AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Rodolfo, > > Sorry for the late answer, I missed this post in the middle of the > thread. Don't worry about it! :) > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:48:13 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:08:39PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Well, you can always do that if you want, but please first clearly > > > define the practical problem you are trying to solve. We are not going > > > to change the i2c core without a good reason. > > > > I created a new page here: > > > > http://i2c.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/I2C_bus_multiplexing > > Thanks for doing this! > > > Please, take a look and report everything should be fixed. :) > > Random comments: > > * I really would like to get rid of the "virtual" term that has been > repeatedly abused. Bus segments behind multiplexers are very real. Actually I use the term "virtual" regarding to the adapters not to the bus segments. In fact the new devices created are not "real" adapters but "virtual" ones. > * I am surprised that you use the term "trunk" for all segments, be > they in front of or behind multiplexers. When I think of a > multiplexer, I designate the segment between the controller and the > multiplexer as the trunk, and the segments behind the multiplexer as > branches. Ok, this can be corrected easily. :) > Other than that I am rather happy with your page, which explains the > problem and the proposed solution clearly. Thanks a lot! Ciao, Rodolfo -- GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: giometti@xxxxxxxxxxxx Linux Device Driver giometti@xxxxxxxx Embedded Systems phone: +39 349 2432127 UNIX programming skype: rodolfo.giometti -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
