On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 07:28:03PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 09:28 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > > > If we're going to change the device tree I'd rather just add a property > > > > to say what the prescaler is. > > > > > > We would however, leave the boards' device trees that use things like > > > "fsl,mpc8543-i2c" as is and introduce the prescaler for the others requiring it. > > > > > > > > > Now the drawback is that the driver would require a change, to parse this > > > prescaler new prescaler property. Would this be OK from your point of view > > > Wolfram ? If yes, I will send the patches for it. > > > > I don't think it is OK. > > Why? Because I thought it could be deduced. Then, a seperate property would not be OK. > > I'd think it can be deduced from the compatible property. > > For almost all existing device trees it cannot be. Pity :( If we do introduce a new property, it should probably be "clock-div". Grepping through binding documentation, that seems accepted. We should ask DT maintainers, too, to be safe. > If you want something that will work without changing device trees, > you'll need to use SVR to identify the SoC. The driver is doing that already, see mpc_i2c_get_sec_cfg_8xxx(). Dunno if it makes sense to add to it for consistency reasons?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
