[i2c] [PATCH] Is review of AT91 patch pending?

Haavard Skinnemoen hskinnemoen at atmel.com
Thu Nov 8 01:14:47 CET 2007

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:37:37 +1100 (EST)
arasv at magtech.com.au wrote:

> A while ago I thought that the i2c-gpio driver was a good substitute
> for an i2c mux chip. I think this makes the driver a very attractive
> option and I may need to do this in the future with our own product.

That was indeed one of the use cases I had in mind when writing it.

> How would the driver handle the situation where each i2c bus might
> require a different speed?

It should handle that just fine since the udelay parameter is
associated with the device, not the driver. If you need multiple
busses, you just add multiple platform_devices, each with its own
udelay parameter (and its own gpio pins for SCL and SDA, obviously.)


More information about the i2c mailing list