[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <76ab13e9-9aa5-97c3-2328-928bbcef9877@synopsys.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:56:24 +0100
From: Luis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Ramiro Oliveira <Ramiro.Oliveira@...opsys.com>
CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>,
<jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Device bindings documentation updated ACPI-enabled
platforms not currently supported
Since practically 90% of the code is shared between master and slave, I was
thinking if it will be acceptable to use the same driver for both but
differentiate the master/slave mode by the compatible strings.
Thanks,
Luis
On 10/18/2016 16:17, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> This is needed because the configuration is different and the i2c-designware
>> cannot be master/slave without a reset. To resolve that I added this property
>> to bind it as a slave when needed.
> Aww, pity that the HW can't do that. Do you have details why?
>
> If that is really a HW limitation, then I'd suggest having a seperate
> driver for slave-only mode so we can differentiate by compatible
> strings.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists