[PATCH 2/5 v3] ARM: at91: sam9g20 add i2c DT support

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 07:59 Fri 09 Mar     , Rob Herring wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 03:53 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 11:08 Thu 08 Mar     , Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On 03/08/2012 02:50 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> >>> For now on use i2c-gpio driver on the same pin as the hardware IP.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>
> >>> Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre at atmel.com>
> >>> Cc: devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> >>> ---
> >>> v3:
> >>>
> >>> 	update i2c binding (Rob comments)
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>> J.
> >>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi |   13 +++++++++++++
> >>>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi
> >>> index 4b0dc99..072b2da 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi
> >>> @@ -189,4 +189,17 @@
> >>>  			status = "disabled";
> >>>  		};
> >>>  	};
> >>> +> > +	i2c-gpio at 0 {
> >>
> >> You updated the example, but not all the actual uses to i2c at 0.
> > on purpose as on some soc we will have HW and soft binding
> > 
> > on the board you put the alias
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure I follow.
> 
> If you use the h/w block, then you would have i2c@<addr> while for gpio
> it's basically an index.
> 
> Also, I don't think you need an alias for i2c. You should not care about
> bus numbering as devices should be sub nodes.
forget about it tired when I reply

Best Regards,
J.