On 21 March 2012 14:18, Igor Mitsyanko <i.mitsya...@samsung.com> wrote: > Do you mean we shouldn't register EXYNOS4_I2C_SLAVE at all so some > hypothetical bus master wouldn't even find EXYNOS4_I2C_SLAVE on a bus? > Maybe the best solution is to make exynos4210_i2c_slave_send() and > exynos4210_i2c_slave_recv() always return -1, so a hypothetical bus master > will treat EXYNOS4_I2C_SLAVE as a broken device. But that seems to behave > exactly like "not register at all" approach.. > And are we really sure that slave interface wouldn't work correctly in a > current implementation? For example, emulated Exynos CPU issues some command > to a device A on SPI line and device A in turn issues data on i2c line > connected to Exynos i2c controller configured as slave. EXYNOS4_I2C_SLAVE > receives a data and raises interrupt flag.
If there's a valid configuration that works in the existing code where we can end up receiving data correctly to the EXYNOS4_I2C_SLAVE from some other device on the i2c bus, that's fine: we can test that the code you have works OK. If there is no valid configuration that will do that (because we don't have any support for any other device being a bus master) then the code is completely useless, untested and untestable and we shouldn't put it in. -- PMM
