On 11/13/2014 01:34 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> If we wanted to be on the safe side and strict (since we are not sure that the >> hardware is 100% compatible), we maybe should add a fsl,qoriq-i2c compatible to >> the driver that does the same as mpc8543-i2c. > > Or you leave the driver as is and use both compatibles: > > compatible = "fsl,qoriq-i2c", "fsl,mpc8543-i2c", "fsl-i2c"; > > ? > I like Scott's proposition to add the prescaler in the device tree more. From the hardware description point of view, it makes more sense: the devices are all just fsl-i2c, with a different prescaler. I just quote it below as a reminder. > > If we're going to change the device tree I'd rather just add a property > to say what the prescaler is. We would however, leave the boards' device trees that use things like "fsl,mpc8543-i2c" as is and introduce the prescaler for the others requiring it. Now the drawback is that the driver would require a change, to parse this prescaler new prescaler property. Would this be OK from your point of view Wolfram ? If yes, I will send the patches for it. Valentin -- 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
