On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Javier Arteaga <javier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't think that is straightforward as this isn't really I2C, only > annoyingly close enough. Besides the lack of ACK, location of R/W bit > and register width as already mentioned, there's also: > > - two separate lines for data reads and writes, and > - sequence start signaling pulse on yet another line. OK how typical. (...) > I agree - tweaking I2C code to allow for so many quirks feels wrong. > > @Linus: if we can't reuse i2c-gpio, would you consider this kind of > generic approach a prerequisite for this patchset? Nope. Go ahead with this, it was just some generic discussion. We do not need to generalize until we find another one of these. Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> I like the code's use of GPIO descriptors. Yours, Linus Walleij
