> But Wolfram needs to have a say in this, I guess the difference to I2C > is that each > address signifies a set of 16 bits, two bytes instead of 8 bits one byte. Maybe > this is to unorthodox for the I2C subsystem to accomodate, and that would > be his pick. Well, we have a flag to ignore the ACK bit, but no flag to skip it. It think we could even add such a flag but then the GPIO driver would likely be the only one ever to support it. There is another difference: R/W bit is MSB here while it is LSB for I2C. I didn't get the original patch, so I can't say if this aims for a bus architecture or just a one-to-one communication. I agree it seems worthwhile to have some kind of generic bitbanging GPIO driver, flexible enough to support various protocols. That one should probably live outside of I2C, however. I2C would then be one occasion to use it, and not the reference in which we need to squeeze every other protocol in.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
