From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:35:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm: tegra: implement NVEC driver using tegrai2c. In-Reply-To: <1549160.njMIY2NVTi@fb07-iapwap2> References: <1427745615-5428-1-git-send-email-danindrey@mail.ru> <20150403194635.GC2016@katana> <1549160.njMIY2NVTi@fb07-iapwap2> Message-ID: <20150410213523.GA15596@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > 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]. > > 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. I'll have a look again for 4.2. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: