Resending as my previous email probably got lost. If you got it twice, apologies. On 31/05/2023 12:22, Carlos Song wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for you reply. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 10:59 PM >> To: Carlos Song <carlos.song@xxxxxxx>; Aisheng Dong >> <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx>; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; festevam@xxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; >> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; >> Anson.Huang@xxxxxxx >> Cc: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@xxxxxxx>; Bough Chen >> <haibo.chen@xxxxxxx>; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>; >> linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: i2c: imx-lpi2c: Add bus recovery >> example >> >> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or >> opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this >> email' button >> >> >> On 29/05/2023 09:43, carlos.song@xxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@xxxxxxx> >>> >>> Add i2c bus recovery configuration example. >> >> Why? That's just example... also with coding style issue. >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@xxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Song <carlos.song@xxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-imx-lpi2c.yaml | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-imx-lpi2c.yaml >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-imx-lpi2c.yaml >>> index 4656f5112b84..62ee457496e4 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-imx-lpi2c.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-imx-lpi2c.yaml >>> @@ -58,6 +58,16 @@ properties: >>> power-domains: >>> maxItems: 1 >>> >>> + pinctrl-names: >>> + minItems: 1 >>> + maxItems: 3 >> >> What's the benefit of this? Entries should be defined but without it is not really >> helpful. Anyway not explained in commit msg. >> >>> + >>> + scl-gpios: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> + >>> + sda-gpios: >>> + maxItems: 1 >> >> You don't need these two. Anyway not explained in commit msg. >> > > Sorry for confusing you with the poor commit log and without > full description. > > The reason why we need sending the patch for dt-binding is : > We sent out a patch for I.MX LPI2C bus support recovery function. > When LPI2C use recovery function, lpi2c controller need to switch the > SCL pin and SDA pin to their GPIO function. So I think the scl-gpio and > sda-gpio property need to be added in the dt-bindings. Why do you think they are not in the bindings already? > > And alternative pinmux settings are described in a separate pinctrl state "gpio". > So maybe "gpio" pinctrl item need to be added. > > I would like to know whether the above changes are really unnecessary according to above case? > Or because of the vague commit log, you are misled and think that our patch is not necessary to add examples. I claim your patch has zero effect. Can you prove otherwise? Proof is with DTS example and result of dtbs_check. > > Is there no need to add sda/scl-gpios property or no need to add maxItems: 1? I think entire patch can be dropped. > We also find the sci-gpio and sda-gpio have been defined in the ref: /schemas/i2c/i2c-controller.yaml. > So is this the root cause of no need to add these properties? Yes. Best regards, Krzysztof
