On 05/25/2016 07:53 AM, Ravikumar Kattekola wrote: > dra72x device has i2c6 controller. > Adding hwmod definition for the same. > > Reference DRA72x TRM [ SPRUHP2Q ] > > Signed-off-by: Ravikumar Kattekola <rk@xxxxxx> > --- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_7xx_data.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_7xx_data.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_7xx_data.c > index d0e7e525..b84c0f7 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_7xx_data.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_7xx_data.c > @@ -1127,6 +1127,20 @@ static struct omap_hwmod dra7xx_i2c5_hwmod = { > .dev_attr = &i2c_dev_attr, > }; > > +/* i2c6 */ > +static struct omap_hwmod dra7xx_i2c6_hwmod = { > + .name = "i2c6", > + .class = &dra7xx_i2c_hwmod_class, > + .clkdm_name = "l4per2_clkdm", > + .flags = HWMOD_16BIT_REG | HWMOD_SET_DEFAULT_CLOCKACT, > + .main_clk = "func_96m_fclk", > + .prcm = { > + .omap4 = { > + }, > + }, > + .dev_attr = &i2c_dev_attr, > +}; > + > /* > * 'mailbox' class > * > @@ -3186,6 +3200,14 @@ static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if dra7xx_l4_per1__i2c5 = { > .user = OCP_USER_MPU | OCP_USER_SDMA, > }; > > +/* l4_per2 -> i2c6 */ > +static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if dra7xx_l4_per2__i2c6 = { > + .master = &dra7xx_l4_per2_hwmod, > + .slave = &dra7xx_i2c6_hwmod, > + .clk = "l3_iclk_div", > + .user = OCP_USER_MPU | OCP_USER_SDMA, > +}; > + > /* l4_cfg -> mailbox1 */ > static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if dra7xx_l4_cfg__mailbox1 = { > .master = &dra7xx_l4_cfg_hwmod, > @@ -3857,6 +3879,7 @@ static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if *dra7xx_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] __initdata = { > &dra7xx_l4_per1__i2c3, > &dra7xx_l4_per1__i2c4, > &dra7xx_l4_per1__i2c5, > + &dra7xx_l4_per2__i2c6, > &dra7xx_l4_cfg__mailbox1, > &dra7xx_l4_per3__mailbox2, > &dra7xx_l4_per3__mailbox3, > responding to the specific patches themselves: NAK. reasoning: a) i2c6 is a custom IP integration with completely non-standard dependencies with cross device dependencies for pretty much a specific usecase -> usage is pretty much limited for generic support - the decision is NOT to support this instance in Linux kernel - internal discussion forwarded to developer. b) the patches themselves are wrong -> it applies to DRA72x not generic DRA7x platform c) patches themselves are in the wrong format (wrong subject line etc). d) patches don't handle the SoC internal device dependencies either -> in short will not function in a generic solution for all variations of platforms. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html