Hello,

On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:55:13PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:

So what about adding a new property "i2c-slave-reg"? This does not only
prevent the confusion above, but also makes it very clear that this node
is an I2C slave without the need to encode that somehow in the
compatible property (although it probably should be described there as
well, still).

I admit I didn't follow the discussions referenced in the footnotes, but
I wonder if the slave part should be added to the device tree at all.
AFAICT it could (and so should) be completely userspace-defined which
slave driver is used on which address. I imagine that for most
controllers the bus addresses to use can be chosen more or less freely.
So what am I missing?

quoted

I hope with this post I can join the different discussions somehow so we are 
able to find a common sense which is acceptable for all.

Thanks for doing this! I changed the subject to maybe raise interest a
bit more.

that worked fine :-)

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html