> I still have to examine in depth all of the problems in the i2c-mux
> documented in Documentation/i2c/i2c-topology (thanks for having written
> those docs!), but at first sight it looks like the ATR is not going to
> introduce big problems because of how it works.

Assuming we are using the previously discussed NEEDS_ATR flag for the adapter
instead of the attach/detach callbacks:

Can't we then simply understand an ATR as a generic 1:1 mapping device
which can be setup when registering an adapter?

When we add an adapter using i2c_add_adapter, we have:


              .-----.  Slave X @ 0x10
  .-----.     |     |   |
  | CPU |--A--| ATR |---+---- B
  `-----'     |     |
              `-----'

When we use i2c_add_mux_adapter, we have:


                                Slave X @ 0x10
              .-----.   .-----.   |
  .-----.     |     |---| ATR |---+---- B
  | CPU |--A--| MUX |   '-----'
  `-----'     |     |   .-----.
              |     |---| ATR |---+---- C
              `-----'   '-----'   |
                                 Slave Y @ 0x10


That way we could keep the topology handling solely to the mux-core.

Am I overlooking something?