From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: A bit confused on i2c communication between modules Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 12:01:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20200324110122.GG1134@ninjato> References: <55204992-9060-6008-31c7-c2855f712e70@gmail.com> <20200324082236.2c4d2ae4@coco.lan> <20200324095810.GC1134@ninjato> <63742e62-d0b6-9d7a-b491-d7969f8ea7e2@ideasonboard.com> <20200324102704.GD1134@ninjato> <7d82a76f-5165-5e7c-bcde-552f527da0d2@ideasonboard.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="w2JjAQZceEVGylhD" Return-path: Received: from sauhun.de ([88.99.104.3]:49164 "EHLO pokefinder.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727455AbgCXLBY (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:01:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7d82a76f-5165-5e7c-bcde-552f527da0d2@ideasonboard.com> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Kieran Bingham Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , "Daniel W. S. Almeida" , sean@mess.org, Shuah Khan , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" --w2JjAQZceEVGylhD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 ;-) >=20 > Thanks Wolfram, >=20 > On 24/03/2020 10:27, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >=20 > >> 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...) > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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? =46rom 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? --w2JjAQZceEVGylhD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAl556IIACgkQFA3kzBSg Kbbh4g/+KPuDQYNNYUVKgy7H5CEvmsbci2DhZjh6rAOv9AHlVxiU25wo7PYeb1aL CO3b2IUVGkz1N4Z1V57lTxwfkL54Jq35mTt5DITQwB8u71cKmmTLZKsez3TIR61x 70sHXcgdYKzvMX6WI0QdoDbqjPLVHLZfMD0Igj3Gx6DXx03PlUlcq5XLbiMY5yPe ssKqGhONe8DDUbcNU1O7Av22EmlTCZdw9IOX8EdygRuttFXLxlYfcN61HvknrJWQ /e4UQjh6FDd7v03ShiVaEg5uENLvlUd3ewPnALWaE99at6BazX16vfACws43nLHi NO+B5MTbEY2vcsktxi3LNzJRQRVjfJcNTHN4ZP+M2YjcqMl41zpsVs0CGq+vToQm ShA78aio7gmRXiDQlSRf6bC3xCHq4A1Oxw0s3mlDa0rnenVi/plEexwSex+YgSit 3dtNb/UJKSuUgwMfhMDweXm6wP27Vp1zA5c7Ruuhir60RhlrdAsT3h72J8Zbo03Y 0AWBGgXonThOtrNqPLVSfR64ZnjjFBcDRtvk+yY747qKpziRjy+AqsWSJzGX/fuv izw9KniEsdcjMrNDgaJz3qCoij/U8Foeo1BuwBtcdqsexgthBkAbh8AqNsTEaAgt VoZWBxWH02VbaZs8rjcOF69YKexkDsXZlztOl7osPhstX4tqWGo= =hEhi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --w2JjAQZceEVGylhD--