Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: Add generic support passing secondary devices addresses
From: Rob Herring
Date: Thu Mar 24 2016 - 10:02:54 EST
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Jean-Michel Hautbois
> Hi !
> 2016-02-01 15:46 GMT+01:00 Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 04:33:00PM +0100, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote:
>>> Some I2C devices have multiple addresses assigned, for example each address
>>> corresponding to a different internal register map page of the device.
>>> So far drivers which need support for this have handled this with a driver
>>> specific and non-generic implementation, e.g. passing the additional address
>>> via platform data.
>>> This patch provides a new helper function called i2c_new_secondary_device()
>>> which is intended to provide a generic way to get the secondary address
>>> as well as instantiate a struct i2c_client for the secondary address.
>>> The function expects a pointer to the primary i2c_client, a name
>>> for the secondary address and an optional default address. The name is used
>>> as a handle to specify which secondary address to get.
>>> The default address is used as a fallback in case no secondary address
>>> was explicitly specified. In case no secondary address and no default
>>> address were specified the function returns NULL.
>>> For now the function only supports look-up of the secondary address
>>> from devicetree, but it can be extended in the future
>>> to for example support board files and/or ACPI.
>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Michel Hautbois <jean-michel.hautbois@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> v2: adding some DT bindings documentation (more than one year later...)
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c.txt | 7 +++++
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/i2c.h | 5 ++++
>>> 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
> Thanks Rob for your ack. What is the future of this patch ?
I'm expecting Wolfram to pick it up.
> I know the merge window is opened, so it will not be integrated now,
> but could be in the next version ?
I would say it is not too late for 4.6 if it was missed by accident.