Hi Jyri, On Wednesday 16 Nov 2016 16:39:28 Jyri Sarha wrote: > On 11/16/16 15:33, Rob Herring wrote: > >> +Optional properties > >> > >>> + - reg: I2C address. If and only if present the driver node I assume you meant device node, not driver node ? > >>> + should be placed into the i2c controller node where the > >>> + tfp410 i2c is connected to (the current implementation does > >>> + not yet support this). > > > > So this chip can work without programming I guess? > > Yes. Just powering it up is enough for most application. > > > reg should only be not present if I2C is not connected in the design. It > > can't be a function of what the driver supports. In otherwords, you > > can't be moving this node around based on when you add I2C control. > > Ok, I'll try to implement a dummy i2c driver at the same time too. I can > not test anything related to it because I do not have a piece of HW with > tfp410 i2c wires connected, but it should not matter as long as I am > able to probe it as a i2c client. I think that Rob's point was that whether the current implementation supports this or not is irrelevant from a DT bindings point of view. It should not be mentioned in the bindings document. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
