On 10/02/2013 11:02 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>>> +Optional properties : >>>> +- i2c-min-scl-pulse-width-us : The minimum valid SCL pulse width that is allowed >>>> + through the deglitch circuit. In units of us. >>>> +- i2c-min-sda-pulse-width-us : The minimum valid SDA pulse width that is allowed >>>> + through the deglitch circuit. In units of us. >>> Are those properties specific to this binding, or intended to be >>> generic? If specific to this binding, a vendor prefix should be present >>> in the property name. If not, you probably want to document the >>> properties in some common file. >> Ok. >> In last revision, I put this properties as specific to this binding. >> Wolfram proposed to make this generic, but it looks like this IP is the >> only one >> needing such properties. >> >> Wolfram, what would you advise? > It might be the only SoC now, but I could imagine that other will have > something similar in the future. I am not perfectly sure, though. So, I > asked for opinions from DT experts when I suggested those bindings. We > could start with vendor specific bindings and generalize them later if > similar ones appear. Yet my experience is that old drivers rarely get > converted to the new bindings. Ok. But if I start with vendor specific bindings, we will have to support it forever, right? > >> If you still prefer to make this properties generics, in which file should I >> document it? I don't see any common i2c binding document for now. > Yeah, it is missing sadly. That's on my todo-list, like many other > things... OK :-) Thanks, Maxime -- 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
