Hi, On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Yuvaraj Kumar <yuvaraj.cd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Yuvaraj Kumar <yuvaraj.cd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Yavaraj, >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Yuvaraj Kumar C D <yuvaraj.cd@xxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> This RFC patch is w.r.t multimaster bus arbitration which is already >>>> being discussing in the mainline. >>>> This patch provides hooks for the i2c multimaster bus arbitration >>>> and to have the arbitration parameters. >>> >>> >>> I may have missed something in all the threads, but my recollection was that >>> the request was that this should be implemented without touching the i2c >>> core code. Your patch modifies the i2c core code. > > Different i2c devices will directly talk to i2c core using i2c_transfer(). > If we put this out of the i2c core,the i2c devices like tpsxxxx and etc > should be registered through the bridge/mux . > >>> >>> My impression was that the best solution was to use the infrastructure in >>> place for i2c multiplexing. ...but in your case you would only multiplex >>> one thing. This was suggested by Grant Likely and seems the cleanest... >> > I agree that Grants idea was the cleanest but we may end up in change in > i2c device probe to register through mux/bridge.(for the > device's connected on that > particular bus which requires arbitration). Does the device tree not handle that case automatically? How are muxes/bridges done in that case? It's not problem to adjust the device tree file accordingly if Grant's approach is the cleanest method. Regards, Simon >> >>> >>> -Doug -- 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
