On 02.09.2019 13:44, Peter Rosin wrote: > > On 2019-09-02 12:11, Eugen.Hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Add compatible for new Microchip SoC, sam9x60 >> >> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-at91.txt | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-at91.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-at91.txt >> index b7cec17..2210f43 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-at91.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-at91.txt >> @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ I2C for Atmel platforms >> Required properties : >> - compatible : Must be "atmel,at91rm9200-i2c", "atmel,at91sam9261-i2c", >> "atmel,at91sam9260-i2c", "atmel,at91sam9g20-i2c", "atmel,at91sam9g10-i2c", >> - "atmel,at91sam9x5-i2c", "atmel,sama5d4-i2c" or "atmel,sama5d2-i2c" >> + "atmel,at91sam9x5-i2c", "atmel,sama5d4-i2c", "atmel,sama5d2-i2c" or >> + "microchip,sam9x60-i2c" > > IIUC, this list should ideally be reformatted with one compatible per line. > > Side note; unfortunate naming with SAM9x60, when there is a preexisting 9260 > fitting the "wildcard" (AFAICT, it's not a wildcard in this case, but it sure > looks like one). > Yes, this is a separate SoC. It is named SAM9X60 and not related to old 9260 Reformatting the list would be useful perhaps in a different cosmetic patch ? > Cheers, > Peter > >> - reg: physical base address of the controller and length of memory mapped >> region. >> - interrupts: interrupt number to the cpu. >> > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > >
