On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:54:58PM +0200, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> >> +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.
Ok, as said, we can add the name resolving functionality later. So, as
long as you don't see such numbering issues with the things you want to
do with RATP then I am fine with adding this when it's needed.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
