On 21.10.2019 18:23, Peter Rosin wrote: > > On 2019-10-21 16:05, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:53:21AM +0000, Eugen.Hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11.09.2019 11:24, Eugen Hristev - M18282 wrote: >>>> From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> This series adds support for analog and digital filters for i2c controllers >>>> >>>> This series is based on the series: >>>> [PATCH v2 0/9] i2c: at91: filters support for at91 SoCs >>>> and later >>>> [PATCH v4 0/9] i2c: add support for filters >>>> and enhanced to add the bindings for all controllers plus an extra bindings >>>> for the width of the spikes in nanoseconds (digital filters) and cut-off >>>> frequency (analog filters) >>>> >>>> First, bindings are created for >>>> 'i2c-analog-filter' >>>> 'i2c-digital-filter' >>>> 'i2c-digital-filter-width-ns' >>>> 'i2c-analog-filter-cutoff-frequency' >>>> >>>> The support is added in the i2c core to retrieve filter width/cutoff frequency >>>> and add it to the timings structure. >>>> Next, the at91 driver is enhanced for supporting digital filter, advanced >>>> digital filter (with selectable spike width) and the analog filter. >>>> >>>> Finally the device tree for two boards are modified to make use of the >>>> new properties. >>>> >>>> This series is the result of the comments on the ML in the direction >>>> requested: to make the bindings globally available for i2c drivers. >>>> >>>> Changes in v5: >>>> - renamed i2c-filter-width-ns to i2c-digital-filter-width-ns as this >>>> is applicable only to digital filter >>>> - created new binding i2c-digital-filter-width-ns for analog filters. >>> >>> Hello Wolfram and Peter, >>> >>> Are you happy with the changes in this version? I haven't heard from you >>> since this latest update. >>> I am interested to know if anymore changes are required or maybe we can >>> move further with this support. >> >> So, I had a look now and I am happy. I will give Peter one more day to >> comment, otherwise I'll apply it tomorrow. > > I had another read-through and only found one nit which is in a separate > message. You can add > > Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> > > for the whole series. Hello Peter and Wolfram, Thanks for reviewing. Send another version of the patch with the nit ? Or how would you like to proceed ? Thanks, Eugen > > Cheers, > Peter > >> Thanks for your patience and keeping at it! >> > > >
