Hi Delphine,
On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 16:41 +0800, Delphine CC Chiu wrote:
> Revise Yosemite 4 devicetree for devices behind i2c-mux
> - Add gpio and eeprom behind i2c-mux
> - Remove redundant idle-state setting for i2c-mux
Generally if you find yourself listing things the patch does in the
commit message it's an indicator you should split the patch up.
It looks like there's a lot of stuff to be fixed, but it doesn't need
to all be fixed in the one commit (as 01/21 suggests I guess). The
devicetree is already inaccurate, it's okay if a subset of the
inaccuracies survive for another patch or so.
Otherwise, if they must be changed together, it would be good to have a
description of *why*. Broadly, the commit message should explain *why*
the change is need regardless, not discuss *what* the patch changes
(that's evident from the patch itself).
>
> Signed-off-by: Delphine CC Chiu <Delphine_CC_Chiu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-yosemite4.dts | 381 ++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 347 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
>
> - i2c-mux@71 {
> - compatible = "nxp,pca9846";
> + i2c-mux@74 {
> + compatible = "nxp,pca9546";
Aside from splitting the patch on adding more devices and removing the
redundant idle-state settings, things like this should probably be
separate too.
Why was the address changed? Was it always wrong? Or has there been a
new revision of the board? A separate commit with some explanation here
would be useful.
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> -
> - idle-state = <0>;
> i2c-mux-idle-disconnect;
> - reg = <0x71>;
> + reg = <0x74>;
>
> - i2c@0 {
> + imux30: i2c@0 {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> reg = <0>;
> @@ -450,26 +726,26 @@ i2c@0 {
> adc@1f {
> compatible = "ti,adc128d818";
> reg = <0x1f>;
> - ti,mode = /bits/ 8 <2>;
> + ti,mode = /bits/ 8 <1>;
This isn't discussed anywhere. There should probably be a separate
change for anything adc128d818-related that explains what's going on
here.
> };
>
> pwm@20{
> - compatible = "max31790";
> + compatible = "maxim,max31790";
> + pwm-as-tach = <4 5>;
> reg = <0x20>;
> - #address-cells = <1>;
> - #size-cells = <0>;
This also isn't discussed anywhere. There should probably be a separate
change for anything max31790-related that explains what's going on
here.
> };
>
> gpio@22{
> compatible = "ti,tca6424";
> reg = <0x22>;
> + gpio-controller;
> + #gpio-cells = <2>;
Also not discussed. Separate change for anything tca6424-related that
explains what's going on here.
> };
>
> - pwm@23{
> - compatible = "max31790";
> - reg = <0x23>;
> - #address-cells = <1>;
> - #size-cells = <0>;
> + pwm@2f{
> + compatible = "maxim,max31790";
> + pwm-as-tach = <4 5>;
> + reg = <0x2f>;
> };
Should go in the max31790-related patch.
>
> adc@33 {
> @@ -492,34 +768,34 @@ gpio@61 {
> };
> };
>
> - i2c@1 {
> + imux31: i2c@1 {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> - reg = <0>;
> + reg = <1>;
>
> adc@1f {
> compatible = "ti,adc128d818";
> reg = <0x1f>;
> - ti,mode = /bits/ 8 <2>;
> + ti,mode = /bits/ 8 <1>;
Should go in the adc128d818 patch
> };
>
> pwm@20{
> - compatible = "max31790";
> + compatible = "maxim,max31790";
> + pwm-as-tach = <4 5>;
> reg = <0x20>;
> - #address-cells = <1>;
> - #size-cells = <0>;
> };
Should go in the max31790 patch
>
> gpio@22{
> compatible = "ti,tca6424";
> reg = <0x22>;
> + gpio-controller;
> + #gpio-cells = <2>;
Should go in the tca6424 patch
> };
>
> - pwm@23{
> - compatible = "max31790";
> - reg = <0x23>;
> - #address-cells = <1>;
> - #size-cells = <0>;
> + pwm@2f{
> + compatible = "maxim,max31790";
> + pwm-as-tach = <4 5>;
> + reg = <0x2f>;
Should go in the max31790 patch
Andrew
