[PATCH 1/3] i2c-mv64xxx: Add I2C Transaction Generator support
jason at lakedaemon.net
Thu Aug 8 13:02:38 EDT 2013
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:43:23PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:30:02PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > On 07/08/2013 17:57, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:35:46PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> But we shouldn't use it alone: we should always use:
> > >>> compatible = "marvell,mv78230-i2c", "marvell,mv64xxx-i2c";
> > >>>
> > >>> From my point of view using "marvell,mv78230-i2c" alone is an error.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wolfram what is your opinion on it?
> > >>
> > >> It is not strictly an error, but risky. If you use an older Kernel
> > >> version (or other OS) which only offers "mv64xxx" you will have no
> > >> match. Although the driver theoretically could have basic support for
> > >> all mv64xxx variants skipping all additional features of later IP
> > >> revisions.
> > >
> > > I agree here. The driver is advertising what IP blocks it can handle,
> > > so it makes sense to add both strings since it can handle both.
> > Wolfram,
> > so beside remarks about the compatibility strings. I didn't any other
> > comment since the v3 which was 7 weeks ago.
> > Does it mean that once I will have added the handle of this string,
> > you will be able to take the series for the 3.12 kernel?
> Please could you also ensure the new string is documented in
> Documentation/devicetree, with a brief description of what it implies
> about the hardware beyond the exiting "marvell,mv64xxx-i2c" string.
That was in patch 3/3:
ARM: dts: mvebu: Introduce a new compatible string for mv64xxx-i2c
Which I've applied here:
And my reasoning for taking it:
I haven't sent a PR to arm-soc yet (I like to let things gel in -next
for a few days), so if there's something wrong with it, please let me
More information about the linux-arm-kernel