On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:19:43AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:11:18PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On r8a7790, DT device nodes and C/DT pinmux data for IIC<n> are called > >> "iic<n>", with DT aliases from "i2c<m>" to the "iic<n>" DT nodes. > >> On r8a7791, DT device nodes and C/DT pinmux data for IIC<n> are called > >> "i2c<m>", with DT aliases from "i2c<m>" to the "i2c<m>" DT nodes. > >> > >> In light of the proliferation of other members of the R-Car Gen 2 families, is > >> there a plan to make this consistent? > > > > The 'i2c'-prefix describes the IP core handled by the rcar driver. This > > core is named i2c in the datasheets. > > > > The 'iic'-prefix describes the IP core handled by the sh-mobile-driver. > > This core is named iic(b) in the datasheets. > > I know the difference between i2c and iic(b). > > However, the DT device nodes and C/DT pinmux data for iic(b) on r8a7791 > are called i2c, too, instead of iic. Ah, yes, now I remember. They are called like this in the datasheet. If we would stick to the IIC ones, it becomes even more confusing, because: IIC3 is I2C6 IIC0 is I2C7 IIC1 is I2C8 and there is no IIC2. Plus, in the Koelsch board schematics, the DVFS bus is also named I2C6, not IIC3. So, I went for that. On Lager, I also wanted to go for i2c4-7, yet I was convinced to use iic there. I forgot about this inconsistency. And I have to admit, if we look at it per-SoC, I think the current solutions make most sense. They are just not consistent :(
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
