>> 3. for chips like max732x, actually, the range of 0x50 - 0x5F will be
>> monitored by the I2C chips at startup to decide the connections of
>> AD2/AD0 pins to GND/VCC/SCL/SDA, so actually, even if the chip
>> is finally decided at, say 0x56, no sane hardware designers will put
>> another chip whose address falls between 0x50-0x5F together with
>> such a max732x chip, ugly, but true.
>
> Why do these chips have a selectable address at all then, if they
> virtually use all the range of possible addresses? I don't buy this
> point at all. I see no reason why putting another chip in the same
> range would cause any problem.

Selectable address is used to decide the initial state of each
pin (especially the output level). Due to the fact that SCL/SDA
are initially held high, the chip has to monitor the first I2C activity
to decide if AD2/AD0 is tied to one of GND/VCC/SCL/SDA.

>
>> One i2c_client requesting a group of address could somehow be
>> more reasonable, and requested address can be changed at
>> run-time.
>
> It would be more reasonable, but it would be racy (as your original
> driver was, now that I come to think of it.) Without a mutex (or
> equivalent) to protect the i2c_client structure, two concurrent
> accesses at different addresses would break. And if you add a mutex to
> the i2c_client, and take it for every access, then you have a
> performance degradation. I definitely prefer to waste a few hundreds
> bytes in memory.
>
> One possible solution to this problem would be to split the few fields
> needed by i2c_smbus_* and friends, to a separate structure (say,
> i2c_handle). One i2c_client structure would include one i2c_handle, and
> could have an optional array of extra ones for multi-address chips.
> This would however require that we change the prototype of all
> i2c_smbus_* helper functions, this is a big change, so it better be
> well considered and deemed worth the effort.

Sounds good.

>
>>
>> Anyway, here's the one for i2c_new_dummy().
>> (...)
...
> Looks OK to me.
>

So , do you see any chance of this getting merged during this
window? If that's possible, please consider merge, thanks.

> --
> Jean Delvare
>



-- 
Cheers
- eric

_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c

Reply via email to