On 11/17/2013 12:41 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Guenter,
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:56:24 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
I managed to do it without changing the API; see patch below.
This results in
i2c-0/name:MPC adapter at 0xfff703000
i2c-1/name:MPC adapter at 0xfff703100
i2c-10/name:i2c-2-mux-75 (chan_id 7)
i2c-11/name:i2c-2-mux-76 (chan_id 0)
i2c-12/name:i2c-2-mux-76 (chan_id 1)
i2c-13/name:i2c-2-mux-76 (chan_id 2)
i2c-14/name:i2c-2-mux-76 (chan_id 3)
i2c-15/name:i2c-2-mux-76 (chan_id 4)
i2c-16/name:i2c-2-mux-76 (chan_id 5)
i2c-17/name:i2c-2-mux-76 (chan_id 6)
i2c-18/name:i2c-2-mux-76 (chan_id 7)
i2c-19/name:i2c-0-mux (chan_id 1)
i2c-2/name:i2c-0-mux (chan_id 0)
i2c-20/name:i2c-0-mux (chan_id 2)
i2c-21/name:i2c-0-mux (chan_id 3)
i2c-22/name:i2c-0-mux (chan_id 4)
i2c-23/name:i2c-0-mux (chan_id 5)
i2c-24/name:i2c-0-mux (chan_id 6)
i2c-25/name:i2c-0-mux (chan_id 7)
i2c-3/name:i2c-2-mux-75 (chan_id 0)
i2c-4/name:i2c-2-mux-75 (chan_id 1)
i2c-5/name:i2c-2-mux-75 (chan_id 2)
i2c-6/name:i2c-2-mux-75 (chan_id 3)
i2c-7/name:i2c-2-mux-75 (chan_id 4)
i2c-8/name:i2c-2-mux-75 (chan_id 5)
i2c-9/name:i2c-2-mux-75 (chan_id 6)
This retains the old mux name if the mux is not an i2c device, and adds
the i2c device address if it is. This solves the problem for me.
Comments ?
This "for me" worries me a bit. You basically restored the uniqueness
for the multiple I2C-based multiplexer case. But for multiple
GPIO-based multiplexers, for example, the name confusion still exists.
Only if some genius connects multiple separate gpio based multiplexers
to the same bus. In practice, though, that can be modeled as single
gpio mux with more pins, so I didn't think that is that much of a problem.
If we are going to address this problem, I believe we should do so in a
way which doesn't need revisiting in a couple months. You are changing
adapter names people or tools may be relying on, we really don't want
to do this too often.
Good point. One possible solution might be to add the mux type into the name.
i2c-2-mux-i2c-76 (chan_id 0)
i2c-2-mux-gpio-77 (chan_id 0)
We could add an additional parameter to the API, such as
const char *qualifier
to provide the "i2c-76" or "gpio-77" string. If the qualifier is NULL,
the name would revert to the old naming scheme. Would that make sense ?
Thanks,
Guenter
We could use the first GPIO pin number as the unique identifier for the
GPIO case. However I2C addresses and GPIO pin numbers could collide...
So we'd need separate name spaces, too.
I agree this makes things even more complicated than they are right
now, but I can't think of any other way that would be both robust and
durable.
--
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
