From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] i3c: Add core I3C infrastructure
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:01:08 +0200
Message-ID: <20170801150108.GC1450@katana>
References: <1501518290-5723-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
 <1501518290-5723-3-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
 <CAK8P3a06GoMdKdn=3Cq0FUwYnjGX0oG+FQLjxfiasVDpbonWRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170731231509.77d1fba4@bbrezillon>
 <CAK8P3a0p=m-8U7TN8usG8HO-QNu_S7rSfykNzu4gm+MOaM2Kzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170801142936.5df48702@bbrezillon>
 <CAK8P3a0SH4kWcvXK+_iPt9LWuNnpjr+omp+ZpyTLjT=H602n+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170801153414.6ce34ee8@bbrezillon>
 <20170801141218.GA1450@katana>
 <20170801164826.423183ff@bbrezillon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xesSdrSSBC0PokLI"
Return-path: <linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170801164826.423183ff@bbrezillon>
Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Przemyslaw Sroka <psroka@cadence.com>, Arkadiusz Golec <agolec@cadence.com>, Alan Douglas <adouglas@cadence.com>, Bartosz Folta <bfolta@cadence.com>, Damian Kos <dkos@cadence.com>, Alicja Jurasik-Urbaniak <alicja@cadence.com>, Jan Kotas <jank@cadence.com>, Cyprian Wronka <cwronka@cadence.com>, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>, Kumar
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org


--xesSdrSSBC0PokLI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline


> 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"?


--xesSdrSSBC0PokLI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=CaK9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xesSdrSSBC0PokLI--