On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 05:48:29PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 08:44:37AM -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 16:50 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 03:48:48PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > ACPI specification allows I2C devices with multiple addresses. The current > > > > implementation goes over all addresses and assigns the last one to the > > > > device. This is typically not the primary address of the device. > > > > > > > > Instead of doing that we assign the first address to the device and then > > > > let the driver handle rest of the addresses as it wishes. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Yes, seems better than what we do know. But maybe taking the lowest > > > address is a bit better heuristic than taking the first address? > > > Not sure, though... > > The problem in taking lowest is that in many cases in current devices, > > the lowest address may end being 0x0C, which is reserved address for > > SMBUS (ARA). This will require different handling. Unfortunately ACPI > > doesn't have a way to distinguish whether SMBUS support is desired or > > not. > > The other option is to skip all reserved addresses for SMBUS also and > > then create on the lowest. > > Well, this makes me think that Mika's approach is probably the sanest > one... Also I think it is more consistent that way. -- 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
