[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e1791500-d7ca-f6d0-44ff-8d830de4bf58@lucaceresoli.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:53:07 +0200
From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org,
Kieran Bingham <kieran@...uared.org.uk>,
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,
On 15/04/20 09:59, 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.
>
Ah, yes! I was assuming the opposite but I double checked and you're
right of course.
Sorry for the noise.
--
Luca
Powered by blists - more mailing lists