On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Jeremy Kerr <jk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Hi, OK will make that change for version 4. >>> + 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. > Should we start with a single link in this case? To start off with only one link is supported by the master. Thanks > 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