[PATCH v5 1/4] i2c: busses: i2c-st: Add ST I2C controller

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 16:53 Thu 17 Oct     , Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2013, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> 
> > On 10:33 Thu 17 Oct     , srinivas kandagatla wrote:
> > > On 17/10/13 08:27, Maxime COQUELIN wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >>> >> +
> > > >>> >> +static struct of_device_id st_i2c_match[] = {
> > > >>> >> +     { .compatible = "st,comms-ssc-i2c", },
> > > >> > the rules is to put the first soc that use the ip in the compatible
> > > >> > as st,sti7100-scc-i2c
> > > > Ok. There are no plans to upstream the SH4 platforms, it will only 
> > > > remains in stlinux.com.
> > > > Maybe I can set the first ARM platform (STiH415)?
> > > > That would give st,stih415-ssc-i2c.
> > > NAK, for st,stih415-ssc-i2c naming.
> > > 
> > > IMO, this makes sense when the same IP integration done on different SOC
> > > changes slightly/very differently.
> > > 
> > > But in this case the "comms" IP remains unchanged across all the SOCs.
> > > 
> > > I would still prefer "st,comms-ssc-i2c", allowing a single device driver
> > > to match against several SoCs. ST "comms" IP it is integrated across all
> > > the STi series of SoCs, so we don't want to add new entry in compatible
> > > for every new SOC.
> > 
> > you never need this you always the first SoC that's all
> > 
> > see other bindings on at91 as example sorry NACK
> 
> I'm guessing that using the first SoC is an I2C'isum.
> 
> Guys, if you don't want to be too specific, just make it as generic as
> possible whilest still using the SoC as a POR: st,stih41x-ssc-i2c will
> do for now, as it covers all current bases.

except this is wrong the IP is used on much older SoC than the recent ARM ones

and the DT so please respect the rule first SoC used on

Best Regards,
J.
> 
> -- 
> Lee Jones
> Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog