On 24 January 2013 08:58, ludovic.desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 01/24/2013 08:27 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:02:32AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD >> wrote: >>> >>> On 22:42 Wed 05 Dec , Joachim Eastwood wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Joachim Eastwood <manabian@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> AT91RM9200 is gaining DT support now so let's add an id to the i2c >>>> driver. >>>> >>>> Tested on custom RM9200 board. Since the driver doesn't support pinctrl >>>> muxing yet I had to add pinctrl hogs for the i2c pins in my dts for it >>>> to work. >>> >>> >>> IIRC the i2c IP have quite a lots of issue on rm9200 and until sam9g45 >>> >>> it not recommended to use it instead use i2c-gpio >> >> >> Ludovic, you know the driver best. Does it make sense to add this? > > > I didn't add this when I did the rework because there was no DT tree support > for RM9200. The configuration for RM9200 IP is already in the driver and > used for non DT platform so I think it makes sense to add this. > > But as Jean-Christophe said, it's recommended to use the i2c-gpio driver > since we know the first versions of the IP have several issues. However if > it fits user usage, it is not forbidden to use it. I assumed the new driver handles the HW quirks better than the old atmel-twi driver(?). So the RM9200 i2c HW is at least usable with this driver. I didn't encounter any problems during my short testing using a couple of different i2c devices. As far as I can remember the old driver didn't even handle the devices I tested with the new driver. regards Joachim Eastwood -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
