On 24/09/24 20:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:02:30AM +1200, Chris Packham wrote:
>> Add the I2C controllers that are part of the RTL9300 SoC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Use reg property
>>
>> arch/mips/boot/dts/realtek/rtl930x.dtsi | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/realtek/rtl930x.dtsi b/arch/mips/boot/dts/realtek/rtl930x.dtsi
>> index cf1b38b6c353..cc43025cd46c 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/realtek/rtl930x.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/realtek/rtl930x.dtsi
>> @@ -33,12 +33,30 @@ lx_clk: clock-175mhz {
>> switch0: switch@1b000000 {
>> compatible = "realtek,rtl9302c-switch", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
>> reg = <0x1b000000 0x10000>;
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>>
>> reboot {
>> compatible = "syscon-reboot";
>> offset = <0x0c>;
>> value = <0x01>;
>> };
>> +
>> + i2c0: i2c@36c {
>> + compatible = "realtek,rtl9300-i2c";
>> + reg = <0x36c 0x14>;
>> + status = "disabled";
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>> + };
> This should be sent as one series... You have dependency otherwise. Also
> this points to issue of mixing nodes with and without unit address.
>
> I think i2c children should be under some sort of "i2c" bus node.
something like this?
switch@1b000000 {
i2c-controller {
i2c-mst1 {
status = "okay";
i2c@0 {
reg = <0>;
gpio@20 {
reg = <0x20>;
};
};
i2c@2 {
reg = <2>;
gpio@20 {
reg = <0x20>;
};
};
};
i2c-mst2 {
status = "disabled";
};
};
};
> Please propose entire realtek,rtl9302c-switch binding with the I2C. It's
> very confusing to see it partial.
Yep will combine these series.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
