Subject: Re: SMBus implementation
To: Allen Briggs <>
From: Jared D. McNeill <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/28/2005 23:46:30
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 22:33 -0400, Allen Briggs wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 09:45:10PM -0300, Jared D. McNeill wrote:
> >  1. Allow 'addr' to be optional; regular I2C devices may fail to attach
> > if unspecified.
> What are the downsides to this?  This seems like the right approach
> to me.  So an smbus-compliant device would attach to either a regular
> I2C bus with an explicit address or to smbus where the smbus enumeration
> would fill in the address.

The only downside that I can think of is that an smbus-compliant device
might try to attach to a non-SMBus i2c host driver. smbus(4) children
should only be allowed to speak "SMBus", not "I2C", to the target IC.