On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 01:16:02PM +0100, pierre-henry.moussay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > PIC64GX i2c is compatible with the MPFS driver Please don't talk about drivers, bindings are for hardware. > > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml > index afa3db726229..4ba8a27eb8e5 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml > @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ properties: > - items: > - const: microchip,mpfs-i2c # Microchip PolarFire SoC compatible SoCs > - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core > + - items: > + - const: microchip,pic64gx-i2c > + - const: microchip,mpfs-i2c # Microchip PolarFire SoC compatible SoCs Why is an mpfs-i2c fallback required? Can't we just fall back to the fabric IP? Cheers, Conor. > + - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core > - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core > > reg: > -- > 2.30.2 > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
