On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:06:32PM +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:55:31AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> Sachin, > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > All Exynos5 platforms have HSI2C controllers and are needed by > >> > various IPs connected to the boards based on these SoCs. Thus > >> > select this by default for Exynos5 platforms. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Cc: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 ++-- > >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > >> > index 9f7d5859cf65..c7918cffe790 100644 > >> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > >> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > >> > @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ config I2C_EG20T > >> > config I2C_EXYNOS5 > >> > tristate "Exynos5 high-speed I2C driver" > >> > depends on ARCH_EXYNOS5 && OF > >> > + default y > >> > help > >> > - Say Y here to include support for high-speed I2C controller in the > >> > - Exynos5 based Samsung SoCs. > >> > + High-speed I2C controller on Exynos5 based Samsung SoCs. > >> > > >> > config I2C_GPIO > >> > tristate "GPIO-based bitbanging I2C" > >> > -- > >> > 1.7.9.5 > >> > >> This seems reasonable to me and I will also take the blame for > >> suggesting this. It's hard to imagine running a real exynos5 system > >> without I2C. One could argue that on an exynos5250 the high speed I2C > >> controller is not mandatory (since all the ports can be muxed to use > >> the old controller) but on newer exynos5 products you're expected to > >> have the main PMIC on one of the i2c ports. An exynos system without > >> access to its PMIC will just sorta limp by. > >> > >> ...but I've added Arnd to this thread as he expressed some > >> reservations about this type of thing, so we'll see what he says. > > > > Ping. Arnd? I have no strong opinion and would take this patch... > > Wolfram, > > How do you want to proceed with this? Giving Arnd a last chance to speak, otherwise I'll take it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
