On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 6:28 PM Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 05/10/2021 18:22:12+0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 4:37 PM Paweł Anikiel <pan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On SoCFPGA systems, it's desireable to have fixed numbering for
> > > i2c busses, while being able to enable/disable them (e.g. have i2c1
> > > be mapped to /dev/i2c-1, even though i2c0 is disabled). This can also
> > > be achieved using devicetree aliases (see i2c_add_adapter). However,
> > > having the driver be self-contained without relying on aliases is more
> > > robust.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paweł Anikiel <pan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I don't see how adding a nonstandard property in one of the i2c bus
> > drivers helps at all. How do you expect this to work when there are
> > multiple i2c controllers in the system using different drivers? What
> > should happen if both an alias and the busno property are set?
> >
>
> What happens when two nodes have the same busno property because e.g.
> one is in a dtsi and the other one is in a dts?
>
If busno is set, the alias is ignored (the code that checks aliases
is never reached). If two nodes have the same busno property, we get
a WARN in drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c:1637, and only on of them
gets attached.
What is a better way of doing this then? Is adding aliases to the
devicetree like this okay?
aliases {
...
i2c0 = &i2c0;
i2c1 = &i2c1;
};
