Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:46:53 +0100 | From | Wolfram Sang <> | Subject | Re: [RFC,v2 2/6] i2c: add I2C Address Translator (ATR) support |
| |
> I still have to examine in depth all of the problems in the i2c-mux > documented in Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology (thanks for having written > those docs!), but at first sight it looks like the ATR is not going to > introduce big problems because of how it works.
Assuming we are using the previously discussed NEEDS_ATR flag for the adapter instead of the attach/detach callbacks:
Can't we then simply understand an ATR as a generic 1:1 mapping device which can be setup when registering an adapter?
When we add an adapter using i2c_add_adapter, we have:
.-----. Slave X @ 0x10 .-----. | | | | CPU |--A--| ATR |---+---- B `-----' | | `-----'
When we use i2c_add_mux_adapter, we have:
Slave X @ 0x10 .-----. .-----. | .-----. | |---| ATR |---+---- B | CPU |--A--| MUX | '-----' `-----' | | .-----. | |---| ATR |---+---- C `-----' '-----' | Slave Y @ 0x10
That way we could keep the topology handling solely to the mux-core.
Am I overlooking something?
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
| |