On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 19:13 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 07:28:03PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 09:28 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I don't think it is OK. > > > > Why? > > Because I thought it could be deduced. Then, a seperate property would > not be OK. > > > > I'd think it can be deduced from the compatible property. > > > > For almost all existing device trees it cannot be. > > Pity :( If we do introduce a new property, it should probably be > "clock-div". Grepping through binding documentation, that seems > accepted. We should ask DT maintainers, too, to be safe. > > > If you want something that will work without changing device trees, > > you'll need to use SVR to identify the SoC. > > The driver is doing that already, see mpc_i2c_get_sec_cfg_8xxx(). Dunno > if it makes sense to add to it for consistency reasons? That's not SVR, but sure. Better to avoid messing with existing device trees. -Scott -- 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
