Re: i2c: slave support framework improvements

[Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 940 bytes --]


> I don't see where the conflict is prevented even if everything is
> registered properly with in-kernel drivers, and it looks trivial to
> prevent.

You can prevent it, if and only if, all devices on the bus have a kernel
driver attached. This is a kind of "corner case" to me. According to my
experience, this scenario does not happen too often. And for sure not
often enough so I could rate it as "the kernel can reliably protect you
from this address conflict". I'd rather be honest here and say: "the
kernel can't protect you from this setup, you have to design your I2C
bus carefully". Which is especially true in multi-master setups.

With that in mind, nothing is lost giving i2c slaves a seperate address
space. We gain loopback operation and (bug) reports are also easier to
understand because one can easily see from logs if somebody is operating
an i2c client driver or an i2c slave backend.

Makes sense?


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]