All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: khali@linux-fr.org (Jean Delvare)
To: LM Sensors <sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: More on SMBus multiplexing
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 06:25:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041024123557.744414cc.khali@linux-fr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041023200215.38e375a1.khali@linux-fr.org>

Replying to myself:

> As a kind of proof of concept, I did a fake i2c-i801-vaio module to
> virtualize the SMBus on my laptop (although it doesn't have a mux
> chip). It works just OK as far as I can tell. Of course the code is
> stupidly useless (the virtual adapter doesn't do anything more than
> dumbly redirect the calls to the physical bus), and lacks the mux
> client registration part, since there is no such chip. I think that
> the idea is clear though, and at least now we have code to comment on
> ;)

I find that I am unable to actually register the mux client. Odd, since
it worked OK on a 2.4 kernel, and several tries led me nowhere on 2.6
kernels. If anyone has sample code to just occupy a given I2C address on
a given bus, please share it with me.

However, why do we even need this? Looks far easier to simply exclude
the multiplexer address from the virtual busses (which we need to do
anyway). Nobody is supposed to access the physical bus directly (it's
not in the main adapters list anyway). Again, I see no reason to protect
us from something that is just never going to happen. This makes the
whole thing even more simple, exactly as in my demo code.

Thanks.

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://khali.linux-fr.org/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: LM Sensors <sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: More on SMBus multiplexing
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:35:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041024123557.744414cc.khali@linux-fr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041023200215.38e375a1.khali@linux-fr.org>

Replying to myself:

> As a kind of proof of concept, I did a fake i2c-i801-vaio module to
> virtualize the SMBus on my laptop (although it doesn't have a mux
> chip). It works just OK as far as I can tell. Of course the code is
> stupidly useless (the virtual adapter doesn't do anything more than
> dumbly redirect the calls to the physical bus), and lacks the mux
> client registration part, since there is no such chip. I think that
> the idea is clear though, and at least now we have code to comment on
> ;)

I find that I am unable to actually register the mux client. Odd, since
it worked OK on a 2.4 kernel, and several tries led me nowhere on 2.6
kernels. If anyone has sample code to just occupy a given I2C address on
a given bus, please share it with me.

However, why do we even need this? Looks far easier to simply exclude
the multiplexer address from the virtual busses (which we need to do
anyway). Nobody is supposed to access the physical bus directly (it's
not in the main adapters list anyway). Again, I see no reason to protect
us from something that is just never going to happen. This makes the
whole thing even more simple, exactly as in my demo code.

Thanks.

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://khali.linux-fr.org/

  reply	other threads:[~2005-05-19  6:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-10-23 18:02 More on SMBus multiplexing Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Jean Delvare
2004-10-24 10:35 ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2005-05-19  6:25   ` Jean Delvare
2004-10-24 17:40   ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25     ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Mark Studebaker
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Mark Studebaker
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Mark Studebaker
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Greg KH
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19  6:25 ` Jean Delvare

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20041024123557.744414cc.khali@linux-fr.org \
    --to=khali@linux-fr.org \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.