On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:13:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/17/2015 08:08 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >As promised here is my RFC to improve address spaces for I2C. This should give > >i2c seperate address spaces for standard clients, 10 bit clients, and our own > >slave clients. So, you can now have a 7 bit slave at 0x50 and a 10 bit slave at > >0x050. Or, you can have a slave driver listening at some address and at the > >same time have a client driver talking to this address. Note that this is only > >the core support for that separation, I am still not sure if there is hardware > >being able talking to its own slave address, but we will see. > > > >This RFC and while I did some quick tests, it is not thoroughly tested. But I > >wanted to push it out before I leave the computer for the weekend. It still > >shows what path I chose to solve the problem. So, comments on that and further > >testing are more than welcome! > > > >BTW Andrey, I did not modify your patch and couldn't get the i2c-slave-eeprom driver > >to work with my Jetson TK1. Does this work for you? > > This approach makes sense to me. \o/ > I'd expect patch 2/9 "dt-bindings: add header for generic I2C flags in > bindings" to document the flags (or at least mention their existence, and > point at the new header file) in the core I2C bindings document. Yes. I forgot to say that docs are missing. I wanted to get some feedback first. This series is a good reason to finally start the core I2C binding document. > Please consider the series, > Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> > > (ack rather than review since I didn't review patch 1, and mostly > concentrated on reviewing the concepts of how slaves were represented rather > than the coding details). Thanks, exactly that I was looking for this RFC. Will try to send out proper patches this week.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
