Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:28:53 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To:     Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>
Cc:     "wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com" <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
        "bgolaszewski@baylibre.com" <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        "kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com" 
        <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "peda@axentia.se" <peda@axentia.se>,
        Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@diasemi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: da9063: occupy second I2C address, too
Message-ID: <20190620122853.GD4699@dell>
References: <AM6PR10MB218184C8F2206024C6CB77EAFEE40@AM6PR10MB2181.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR10MB218184C8F2206024C6CB77EAFEE40@AM6PR10MB2181.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Steve Twiss wrote:

> (resend because the e-mail client added HTML formatting to my last reply)
> 
> Hi Wolfram,
> 
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:18:06, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > Subject: [PATCH] mfd: da9063: occupy second I2C address, too
> > 
> > Even though we don't use it yet, we should mark the second I2C address
> > this device is listening to as used.
> 
> Sure. There is a second method for accessing higher pages of registers.
> The DA9063 Datasheet Revision 2.2, 12-Mar-2019, page 96, says this:
> 
> In 2-WIRE operation, the DA9063 offers an alternative method to access register pages 2 and 3.
> These pages can be accessed directly by incrementing the device address by one (default read
> address 0xB3; write address 0xB2). This removes the need to write to the page register before
> access to pages 2 and 3, thus reducing the traffic on the 2-WIRE bus.
> 
> Is this a safety clause? What I mean is, shouldn't the hardware design make
> sure there are not two devices located on the same I2C bus with the same slave
> address?

Why isn't this reply attached (threaded) to the patch.

Is your mailer broken?

> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> > Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> > index 455de74c0dd2..2133b09f6e7a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> > @@ -221,6 +221,8 @@ static int da9063_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> >  		return ret;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	devm_i2c_new_dummy_device(&i2c->dev, i2c->adapter, i2c->addr + 1);
> > +
> >  	return da9063_device_init(da9063, i2c->irq);
> >  }
> >  
> 

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog