> > 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? > > We're only enforcing it for systems that want to make use of this new > API, so it's not breaking backward compatibility. Well, even new systems might need to update old DTSIs which they include. > > 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? > > That's assuming the first scanned address is free. There could also be > I2C-controller I2C muxes or gates in front of the bus. Things can > quickly get more expensive. Not on a fully described bus, or? The first address will always be free.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
