[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8937e466-fe3f-3686-98a9-8013990bc3f9@ideasonboard.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:07:56 +0100
From: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org,
Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] i2c: allow DT nodes without 'compatible'
Hi Wolfram,
On 15/04/2020 08:59, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> As I said in the reply to v1, I think we should reserve addresses also
>> when there is a compatible string but no matching driver, but this is
>> another story and can be handled separately.
>
> Unless I misunderstand you, I think they do already. Note that
> only 'i2cdetect' shows a device as busy *IFF* there is a driver bound to
> it. The internal 'i2c_check_addr_busy' does not care about a driver
> being bound. You can check this by trying to use
> i2c_new_ancillary_device() with an address which is already described in
> DT but which driver is disabled.
Aha, is it easy enough to distinguish that difference in user-space so
that we can present a specific character to indicate this in i2cdetect?
Or is that not so easy?
--
Kieran
Powered by blists - more mailing lists