On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:49:55AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote: > +cc: linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Moving /this/ to the linux-i2c list ;-) > > Thanks Wolfram, > > On 24/03/2020 10:27, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > >> Maybe we should have a whole virtual I2C bus for virtual devices :-) > >> > >> (Hrm, that started out as a joke, and now I'm not sure if it's a real > >> option or not...) > > > > Just one final thought: I think this is actually the best option. Zero > > chance of address collisions (which could happen if you have a not > > perfectly-described real HW bus). No RPM mangling of real and virtual > > devices. A clear seperation what is real and what is virtual. Plus, you > > can implement it right away, no need to wait for the dynamic address > > assignment. > > Agreed - even better all round! But I presume we don't yet have a > 'virtual' i2c bus? So it's a patch-set to do first? Or is it already > feasible? From what I understand, you won't need an API for that. What I understand: There will be a master device (a DVB or something). This will register its own i2c_adapter with a dummy .xfer callback. The sub-devices will be i2c_clients, then. I don't know how you want communication between those. Maybe the .xfer callback will need to do some message parsing?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
