On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 06:36:58PM +0100, Fabrizio Castro wrote: > Although the I2C IP found in the RZ/G1C is not exactly the same > as the one found in the R-Car Gen2 family or R-Car Gen3 family, > it can still be considered as compatible with R-Car Gen2 from > a software perpective. > This patch therefore documents the SoC specific compatible string, > and the compatibility with Gen2 fallback is retained. > > Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Biju Das <biju.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rcar.txt | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rcar.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rcar.txt > index 39cd21d..671e2a1 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rcar.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rcar.txt > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ Required properties: > - compatible: > "renesas,i2c-r8a7743" if the device is a part of a R8A7743 SoC. > "renesas,i2c-r8a7745" if the device is a part of a R8A7745 SoC. > + "renesas,i2c-r8a77470" if the device is a part of a R8A77470 SoC. It seems to me that the RZ/G1C has some extra registers described for I2C when compared with both other RZ/G1 and R-Car Gen2 SoCs. Am I correct in assuming that operation is correct for the RZ/G1C when using the fallback compat string for RZ/G1 and R-Car Gen2 SoCs? And that, speculating wildly, in future it may be possible for the driver to use these extra resgisters, f.e. by via a match on the renesas,i2c-r8a77470 compat string? > "renesas,i2c-r8a774a1" if the device is a part of a R8A774A1 SoC. > "renesas,i2c-r8a7778" if the device is a part of a R8A7778 SoC. > "renesas,i2c-r8a7779" if the device is a part of a R8A7779 SoC. > -- > 2.7.4 >
