On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 02:17:47PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/i2c/slave-interface > > > +I2C slave events > > +---------------- > > + > > +The bus driver sends an event to the backend using the following function: > > + > > + ret = i2c_slave_event(client, event, &val) > > + > > +'client' describes the i2c slave device. 'event' is one of the special event > > +types described hereafter. 'val' holds an u8 value for the data byte to be > > +read/written and is thus bidirectional. The pointer to val must always be > > +provided even if val is not used for an event, i.e. don't use NULL here. 'ret' > > +is the return value from the backend. Mandatory events must be provided by the > > +bus drivers and must be checked for by backend drivers. > > + > > +Event types: > > + > > +* I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED (mandatory) > > + > > +'val': unused > > +'ret': always 0 > > + > > +Another I2C master wants to write data to us. This event should be sent once > > +our own address and the write bit was detected. The data did not arrive yet, so > > +there is nothing to process or return. Wakeup or initialization probably needs > > +to be done, though. > > + > > +* I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUESTED (mandatory) > > I'm wondering whether these should be called I2C_SLAVE_READ_FIRST... I considered that but decided against it. The difference to WRITE was one reason. I think there was another I found when implementing the update, but that one I can't recall right now :(
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
