(resend because the e-mail client added HTML formatting to my last reply) Hi Wolfram, On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:18:06, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] mfd: da9063: occupy second I2C address, too > > Even though we don't use it yet, we should mark the second I2C address > this device is listening to as used. Sure. There is a second method for accessing higher pages of registers. The DA9063 Datasheet Revision 2.2, 12-Mar-2019, page 96, says this: In 2-WIRE operation, the DA9063 offers an alternative method to access register pages 2 and 3. These pages can be accessed directly by incrementing the device address by one (default read address 0xB3; write address 0xB2). This removes the need to write to the page register before access to pages 2 and 3, thus reducing the traffic on the 2-WIRE bus. Is this a safety clause? What I mean is, shouldn't the hardware design make sure there are not two devices located on the same I2C bus with the same slave address? Regards, Steve > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c > index 455de74c0dd2..2133b09f6e7a 100644 > --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c > @@ -221,6 +221,8 @@ static int da9063_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, > return ret; > } > > + devm_i2c_new_dummy_device(&i2c->dev, i2c->adapter, i2c->addr + 1); > + > return da9063_device_init(da9063, i2c->irq); > } > > -- > 2.20.1
