lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] iio: inv_mpu6050: Add support for auxiliary I2C master
From
Date
On 04/27/2016 11:39 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2016-04-23 23:32, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 20/04/16 18:17, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
>>> The MPU has an auxiliary I2C bus for connecting external
>>> sensors. This bus has two operating modes:
>>> * pass-through, which connects the primary and auxiliary busses
>>> together. This is already supported via an i2c mux.
>>> * I2C master mode, where the mpu60x0 acts as a master to any external
>>> connected sensors. This is implemented by this patch.
>>>
>>> This I2C master mode also works when the MPU itself is connected via
>>> SPI.
>>>
>>> I2C master supports up to 5 slaves. Slaves 0-3 have a common operating
>>> mode while slave 4 is different. This patch implements an i2c adapter
>>> using slave 4 because it has a cleaner interface and it has an
>>> interrupt that signals when data from slave to master arrived.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.crestez@intel.com>
>> This one needs acks from:
>>
>> Device tree maintainer (odd binding ;)
>> Peter Rosin (odd binding interacting with the mux support)
>> Wolfram (it has a whole i2c master driver in here).
>>
>> (just thought I'd list these for the avoidance of doubt).
>
> I spot some overlap with the questions in "[RFC] i2c: device-tree:
> Handling child nodes which are not i2c devices"
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-i2c&m=146073452819116&w=2
>
> And I think I agree with Stephen Warren that an intermediate placeholder
> node would make sense. I.e.
>
> mpu6050@68 {
> compatible = "...";
> reg = <0x68>;
> ...
> i2c-aux-mux {
> i2c@0 {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> reg = <0>;
>
> foo@44 {
> compatible = "bar";
> reg = <0x44>;
> ...
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
> Or
>
> mpu6050@68 {
> compatible = "...";
> reg = <0x68>;
> ...
> i2c-aux-master {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> gazonk@44 {
> compatible = "baz";
> reg = <0x44>;
> ...
> }
> }
> }
>
> depending on if you want an aux-mux or an aux-master.
>
> But I don't know if that intermediate i2c-aux-mux node causes any
> problems?

It's not clear how that would be implemented. It seems to me that right
now i2c_add_mux_adapter assumes that the parent device is a dedicated
mux device and all it's children are mux branches. Would this require
introducing a new "struct device" for the i2c-aux-master node?

It might make sense to make the automatic processing of the parents
node's of_node optional and let the caller assign the of_node describing
the attached devices.

I think the most natural solution would be to require child nodes named
i2c-aux-mux and i2c-aux-master to describe aux devices. For backwards
compatibility it would be easiest to go with i2c@0/i2c@1 (identified by
reg=0/1).

But I don't know much about devicetree and I'd rather accept an external
suggestion.

Regards,
Leonard

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-28 13:01    [W:0.080 / U:2.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site