Hi Wolfram, On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:05:54 +0200 Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Why is "i2c-alias-pool" in the drivers binding and not a regular i2c > > > binding? Same question for the implementation of the alias-pool > > > handling. Shouldn't this be in the i2c-atr library? I'd think managing > > > the list of aliases would look all the same in the drivers otherwise? > > > > I think that this _was_ the plan, as it looks obviously cleaner, but > > then we agreed that we should remove the pool entirely, so I didn't > > bother moving it. > > Ah, you mean we agreed on that at the Plumbers BoF? I think we can > conclude this is obsolete meanwhile. GMSL encodes the target addresses > in DT. Rob is also fine with the binding here to encode the pool in DT. > Let's follow that road, I'd say. Sure, I'm not questioning that. Apologies if it did look like. I was just trying to explain (to myself as well) why this hadn't been done previously. Best regards, Luca -- Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
