On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:10:10 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Boris Brezillon > <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > A new I3C subsystem has been added and a generic description has been > > created to represent the I3C bus and the devices connected on it. > > > > > +I2C devices > > +=========== > > + > > +Each I2C device connected to the bus should be described in a subnode. All > > +properties described in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c.txt are > > +valid here, but several new properties have been added. > > + > > +New constraint on existing properties: > > +-------------------------------------- > ... > > + + third cell: should be 0 > > What for? Just to be future-proof, or do you have something specific > in mind here? Even if I2C devices only need 1 cell, I3C devices need 3 (1 for the static address and 2 for the PID). Since both type of devices are described under the same bus node, and we can have different #address-cells, I had to put 0-padding in the last cell.
