Re: A bit confused on i2c communication between modules

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:49:55AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> +cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
> Moving /this/ to the linux-i2c list ;-)
> 
> Thanks Wolfram,
> 
> On 24/03/2020 10:27, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > 
> >> Maybe we should have a whole virtual I2C bus for virtual devices :-)
> >>
> >> (Hrm, that started out as a joke, and now I'm not sure if it's a real
> >> option or not...)
> > 
> > Just one final thought: I think this is actually the best option. Zero
> > chance of address collisions (which could happen if you have a not
> > perfectly-described real HW bus). No RPM mangling of real and virtual
> > devices. A clear seperation what is real and what is virtual. Plus, you
> > can implement it right away, no need to wait for the dynamic address
> > assignment.
> 
> Agreed - even better all round! But I presume we don't yet have a
> 'virtual' i2c bus? So it's a patch-set to do first? Or is it already
> feasible?

From what I understand, you won't need an API for that. What I
understand:

There will be a master device (a DVB or something). This will register
its own i2c_adapter with a dummy .xfer callback. The sub-devices will be
i2c_clients, then. I don't know how you want communication between
those. Maybe the .xfer callback will need to do some message parsing?


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]