Hello Tomi, Matti, Wolfram,
On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 14:32:02 +0200
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 03/11/2022 14:13, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
On 11/3/22 13:50, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
Hi Rob,
On 02/11/2022 19:26, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 03:20:27PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
+
+ i2c-alias-pool:
Something common or could be? If not, then needs a vendor prefix.
I'll have to think about this. It is related to the i2c-atr, so I think
it might be a common thing.
I'd say this should be common. Where the i2c-atr properties should live
is another question though. If the I2C-atr stays as a genericly usable
component - then these bindings should be in a file that can be
referenced by other I2C-atr users (like the UB960 here).
Yep. All the links, link, serializer and alias nodes/properties are new
things here, and I guess these could be used by other deser-ser systems.
That said, I don't have any experience with other systems.
The i2c-alias-pool was discussed during the RFC,v2 review [1] and it
was agreed that it should be generic. The same principle should apply
to the other ATR properties.
That said, at some point it was also decided that the alias pool should
just be ditched in favor of an automatic selection of an unused address
by the i2c core [2] [3]. Maybe that idea has changed, definitely some
i2c core things needed to be omdified for it to happen, but overall I'm
still convinced automatic assignment without a pool was a good idea.