Hi Chris,
>From this:
>> +
>> +The standard FSI master node
>> +----------------------------
>> +This node describes a FSI master implmemented fully in hardware
>> +with dedicated input/output pins required for its function (i.e.
>> +not using generic GPIO pins).
>> +Required property:
>> + compatible = "ibm,fsi-master"
and this:
>> +Example:
>> +
>> +fsi-master {
>> + compatible = "ibm,fsi-master-gpio", "ibm,fsi-master";
>
> From the description, these should be mutually exclusive.
I agree with Rob here. The intention is for "ibm,fsi-master" to be an
abstract master -- simply indicating that this node describes a master,
with no specific implementation, and "ibm,fsi-master-gpio" to be a
GPIO-based implementation. A hardware-based FSI master would have a
different compatible value, based on the hardware.
We should remove references to implementations in the "The standard FSI
master node" section, because this is independent of implementation.
>> + clk-gpios = <&gpio 0>, <&gpio 6>;
>> + data-gpios = <&gpio 1>, <&gpio 7>;
>> + enable-gpios = <&gpio 2>, <&gpio 8>;
>> + trans-gpios = <&gpio 3>, <&gpio 9>;
>> + mux-gpios = <&gpio 4>, <&gpio 10>;
Do we support multiple-link masters? This example implies a 2-link
master.
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
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
