[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <276714fb-6b3a-1e99-0744-bfd037305724@enpas.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 12:00:11 +0200
From: Max Staudt <max@...as.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] i2c/busses: Add i2c-icy for I2C on m68k/Amiga
On 08/15/2019 09:12 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> I kept it in because i2c-elektor also exposes it in the same way, and
>> it seems useful.
>
> Yeah, I noticed. I don't know how useful it is in practice (same for the
> getown callback) but I don't have better ideas, so let's just keep this
> to be consistent.
Well, the other option is to remove it, and then add it back once somebody complains - which is unlikely to happen. The clock parameter is PCF8584 specific anyway, and I think removing it is a good option, as I've done the same with getown() (where in i2c-elektor, 'own' sets the PCF8584's own address).
Question is, if I remove the parameter, I'd like it to be non-destructive. Do you know of anything that can go wrong if the I2C master is running the bus on a wrong clock?
Thanks
Max
Powered by blists - more mailing lists