From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: implementing a slave driver Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:07:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20110223100714.GA2193@pengutronix.de> References: <201102192253.40287.marc.dietrich@ap.physik.uni-giessen.de> <20110223010216.GX15795@trinity.fluff.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110223010216.GX15795-SMNkleLxa3Z6Wcw2j4pizdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ben Dooks Cc: Marc Dietrich , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > It might be worth doing a simple slave driver, but I'm not sure how > many would really want to use it? I sense a rising interest in slave support. Sadly, only during requirement talks so far, no actual project. But in those talks, a generic solution is favoured, because it makes switching SoC easier. Regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk1k3FIACgkQD27XaX1/VRt4NgCcC1ngLuVxz+amFFF8jaxax96H zGYAnR9lAvtH+7siH04Mmv16uQc2+pIn =UV9Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK--