> > It would be nice, but I'm not sure this is really doable. Say the DT for > > board X lists all the used slave addresses. Then the kernel would assume > > all the other addresses are available. But then somebody includes the DT > > of board X in the DT for product Z, based on board X + add-on board Y. > > Add-on board Y has 2 I2C chips, but only one is described in DT. Now the > > kernel still thinks it knows all the used address, but this is wrong. > > That's the fault of the system integrator though. We can't prevent > people from making incorrect DT, and we shouldn't go to great length to > still support them. Currently, there is no paradigm that all I2C busses must be fully described. Enforcing it now all of a sudden is not too user-friendly, or? Especially since calling read_byte once is not necessarily "great length" in my book. If you have 8 cameras on a 400kHz bus, the 8 * 18 bits should take 360us if I am not mistaken?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
