From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Lawnick Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: add generic I2C multiplexer using gpio api Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:51:50 +0200 Message-ID: <4C458DD6.2020306@gmx.de> References: <1278285584-13632-1-git-send-email-peter.korsgaard@barco.com> <87fwzejz1v.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20100720115005.3b3fa865@hyperion.delvare> <87bpa2jwzy.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <4C4583F3.8080807@gmx.de> <87y6d6ie7q.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87y6d6ie7q.fsf-uXGAPMMVk8amE9MCos8gUmSdvHPH+/yF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Peter Korsgaard Cc: Jean Delvare , ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Peter Korsgaard said the following: >>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Lawnick writes: > > >> But this patch is independent from that work as the mux access isn't > >> through I2C, hence no changes to i2c-core needed. > > Michael> i2c-mux patch does not expect path control via i2c. > Michael> Your scenario fits perfectly. > > Hmm, I'll take a closer look at the last version then - sorry. In the > past it afaik did. What is the point of the i2c-core changes if path > control isn't via i2c? > The changes in i2c-core are mostly for traversing the tree and check for duplicate addresses. >>From i2c-core and user space view there is no logical difference between a h/w adapter and a multiplexer. They are all handled the same. But I fear your question arises from your different approach. May be it gets more clear after looking into i2c-mux.c and pca954x.c. -- KR Michael Lawnick