>> +struct ratp_bb_i2c_read_request {
>> + struct ratp_bb header;
>> + uint16_t buffer_offset;
>> + uint8_t bus;
>> + uint8_t addr;
>
> I wonder how we see the RATP support. If it's for adhoc debugging then
> bus/addr is fine. The caller should have no expectations that the bus
> number is constant though. Likewise for the address which might change
> across different board revisions.
>
> Should we have support for resolving names, which could be provided by
> aliases in dt?
>
> We could still add name resolving support later as a separate call, I
> just thought that now is the time to think how we proceed.
>
I truly have no opinion here, but if name resolving is added at some
point I can either update this operation or even add a new one.
--
Aleksander
https://aleksander.es
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
