[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 2/5] i3c: Add core I3C infrastructure

> I do not know of any real devices as of today (all my tests have been
> done with a dummy/fake I3C slaves emulated with a slave IP),

I see.

> spec clearly describe what legacy/static addresses are for and one of
> their use case is to connect an I3C device on an I2C bus and let it act
> as an I2C device.

OK. That makes it more likely.

> Unless you want your device (likely a sensor) to be compatible with both
> I3C and I2C so that you can target even more people.

Right. My question was if this is a realistic or more academic scenario.

> I'm perfectly fine with the I3C / I2C framework separation. The only
> minor problem I had with that was the inaccuracy of the
> sysfs/device-model representation: we don't have one i2c and one i3c
> bus, we just have one i3c bus with a mix of i2c and i3c devices.

I understand that. What if I2C had the same seperation between the "bus"
and the "master"?

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-01 17:02    [W:0.089 / U:10.940 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site