[PATCH 1/3] i2c-mv64xxx: Add I2C Transaction Generator support

[Mark Rutland]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 06:02:38PM +0100, Jason Cooper wrote:
> 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:
> 
>   http://git.infradead.org/linux-mvebu.git/commitdiff/e7c4a1e9f937453a32a5119868cac49de098640a
> 
> And my reasoning for taking it:
> 
>   http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=137555145730141&w=2

My bad, I missed that.

> 
> 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
> know.

It looks fine to me. :)

Thanks,
Mark.