On 05/05/2015 04:55 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
I'm back in town. Sorry for the delay...
One thing where we need your help as a I2C maintainer is how to represent an
i2c slave device using device-tree. You may remember our discussion in the
past from here [1] where you suggested to just make a slave client by its
compatible name. Stephen Warren from NVIDIA raised some concerns about this
solution because it may not be appropriate in all possible future cases (which
is what a proper device-tree representation should take care off). He instead
suggested to mark a slave client by adding some flag to the reg property, to
be able to handle a situation where both master client and slave client have
the same i2c bus address forming a loopback (e.g. for testing purpose) on the
same bus. More details here [2].
Well... I can agree that we shouldn't prevent a loopback from a DT point
of view. (Despite the fact that it is really for development and I
wonder how many I2C IP cores can do this flawlessly)
However, I am still against putting that information into the reg
property. I see devices coming which have multiple addresses, so people
somewhen want to encode this in DT as well. I'd like to have that a
simple array of addresses. Adding flags, rarely used, will create a mess
IMO.
The container node has a #address-cells property for this very reason.
It's perfectly well-defined how to split up a property containing a
large number of cells into separate values, by using the value of
#address-cells. Plus, the canonical formatting (albeit not enforced by
the DT compiler) for a property that contains an array of entries, each
2 cells in size, would be:
reg = <0 0x1a>, <0 0x40>, <0 0x48>;
rather than:
reg = <0 0x1a 0 0x40 0 0x48>;
... so it's quite simple to make it very human-readable too.
So what about adding a new property "i2c-slave-reg"? This does not only
prevent the confusion above, but also makes it very clear that this node
is an I2C slave without the need to encode that somehow in the
compatible property (although it probably should be described there as
well, still).
That doesn't sound like a good idea. reg is the DT-defined way of
identifying/numbering child nodes. We shouldn't invent other properties
that mean essentially the same thing, but simply encode flags.
It might be reasonable to split an I2C controller node up so that it has
n child nodes:
i2c-controller@1234 {
compatible = "foo";
reg = <0x1234 0x100>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
master {
eeprom@1a {
compatible = ...;
reg = <0x1a>;
};
...
};
slave {
nvec@NN {
compatible = ...;
reg = <0xNN>;
};
...
};
};
However, that seems a lot more complex and invasive than just adding an
extra address cell to reg, and putting everything into a single node.
I hope with this post I can join the different discussions somehow so we are
able to find a common sense which is acceptable for all.
Thanks for doing this! I changed the subject to maybe raise interest a
bit more.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
