On 2016-08-16 14:12, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi Peter, > >> If you really have a separate device on the bus with the same address >> that you want to add slave support for, then there really is a conflict, >> and the kernel knows it. > > We still have a disagreement about "the kernel knows it". The kernel > knows it only in one case, i.e. when you are able to describe all > devices on the bus. > > What about this compromise: We keep the current scheme, but print a > warning when the kernel notices a slave device has the same address > which is already claimed by a client driver. This will let most users > know about the conflict but it will not hurt the debugging-via-loopback > case, since people know what they are doing and will happily ignore it. > > If you can agree to that, I'll cook up a patch later this week. Hmm, maybe add a "slave loopback quirk" to adapters that allows this, and forbid it if the quirk isn't present? (or use whatever flag is appropriate, if quirks do not fit) And/or require some kind of loopback flag when adding a client driver that is supported via loopback to a slave driver. Note, I do not feel strongly about this at all, I'm mainly trying to understand what's going on. Now I do understand, and do not desperately seek changes. It just looked fishy, that's all... Cheers, Peter -- 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
