On Thu, 2016-12-22 at 14:59 +0000, Luis Oliveira wrote:
> On 13-Dec-16 14:11, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Something like this:
> >
> > of_for_each_child_node(child) {
> > of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", ®);
> > if (reg & I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS))
> > im_a_slave = true;
> > }
> >
> > ...rather than testing "mode" is equal to "slave".
> >
> > Rob
> >
>
> Hi Rob, Andy,
>
> I'm struggling to implement your suggestion @Rob. I checked the
> tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts that uses that approach but I have some
> doubts.
>
> My DT is as follows
>
> i2c@0x2000 {
> compatible = "snps,designware-i2c";
> reg = <0x2000 0x100>;
> clock-frequency = <400000>;
> clocks = <&i2cclk>;
> interrupts = <0>;
>
> I could add something like this:
>
> eeprom@64 {
> compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> reg = <(I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x64)>;
> }
>
> But I think this is different form what I was doing before. I have two
> questions:
>
> - This way the I2C controller is identified as a slave controller or
> just the
> subnode eeprom?
> - This way looks like my slave address will be fixed
>
> In the previous Patch v3 submission @Andy suggested a property that
> selects mode
> that I did and it's working. And you @Rob suggested to do it a common
> property.
> It is implemented in the DT like:
>
> mode = "slave";
>
> So before I do this changes can you please agree both if you still
> think this is
> the best approach?
I'm a bit lost in the discussion (and TBH busy by something else), so I
would agree on whatever you and Rob make an agreement on.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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
