[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhSlX01mEpFiRZQR@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:57:03 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] add support for fwnode in i2c mux system and sfp
> > In the DT world, we avoid snow flakes. Once you define a binding, it
> > is expected every following board will use it. So what i believe you
> > are doing here is defining how i2c muxes are described in APCI.
>
> Linux kernel has already established description of I2C muxes in ACPI:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/firmware-guide/acpi/i2c-muxes.html
>
> I'm not sure we want another one.
Agreed. This implementation needs to make use of that. Thanks for
pointing it out. I don't know the ACPI world, are there any other
overlaps with existing ACPI bindings?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists