> I still have to examine in depth all of the problems in the i2c-mux
> documented in Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology (thanks for having written
> those docs!), but at first sight it looks like the ATR is not going to
> introduce big problems because of how it works.
Assuming we are using the previously discussed NEEDS_ATR flag for the adapter
instead of the attach/detach callbacks:
Can't we then simply understand an ATR as a generic 1:1 mapping device
which can be setup when registering an adapter?
When we add an adapter using i2c_add_adapter, we have:
.-----. Slave X @ 0x10
.-----. | | |
| CPU |--A--| ATR |---+---- B
`-----' | |
`-----'
When we use i2c_add_mux_adapter, we have:
Slave X @ 0x10
.-----. .-----. |
.-----. | |---| ATR |---+---- B
| CPU |--A--| MUX | '-----'
`-----' | | .-----.
| |---| ATR |---+---- C
`-----' '-----' |
Slave Y @ 0x10
That way we could keep the topology handling solely to the mux-core.
Am I overlooking something?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
