From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kieran Bingham Subject: Re: A bit confused on i2c communication between modules Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 10:49:55 +0000 Message-ID: <7d82a76f-5165-5e7c-bcde-552f527da0d2@ideasonboard.com> 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> Reply-To: kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([213.167.242.64]:42438 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727095AbgCXKuB (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2020 06:50:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200324102704.GD1134@ninjato> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , "Daniel W. S. Almeida" , sean@mess.org, Shuah Khan , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" +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? I see references to 'i2c-virtual.c' and 'i2c-virt.c', but I can't find those files or any config options themselves... -- Regards