Hi Hans, (you should really fix your mailer, it has the bad habit of screwing the wrapping)
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > There's still some subtleties I don't get yet, but the more I > > think about this, the more I feel like we'll have to write our own > > bus :( > > So on the bus things are different then with i2c, that does not mean > we cannot still pretend it is i2c to upper layers in the kernel. The fact that it's not having any ACK, nor any address is kind of a show stopper. For all we now, we could just as much pretend it's SPI :) > I still believe we should try to make this some kind of pseudo i2c > controller and not do a new bus for this. If you look at the axp209 > code intended for upstream then it uses a lot of i2c infra, not just > the bus stuff, but also things like devm_regmap_init_i2c, so if we > do our own bus we would need to write out own regamp glue for that > bus too. Regmap isn't mandatory. At all. We can do perfectly fine without it. Plus, a lot of devices can actually be plugged onto several different buses, and have driver that add a small layer to access registers depending on which bus they're loaded from. We could very well imagine having to use regmap for the i2c part, and p2wi bus calls for the A31's case. > And if we try and fail we can always define our own bus for this > later. You can still ask the i2c maintainer, but I'm afraid I know his answer. -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
