Hi Andi, On 5/03/24 04:16, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:58:11AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> "i2c-scl-clk-low-timeout-us" has flaws in itself and the usage here is >> all wrong. The driver doesn't use it as a maximum time for clock >> stretching but the maximum time for a total transfer. We already have >> a binding for the latter. Convert the wrong binding from examples. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mpc.yaml | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mpc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mpc.yaml >> index 70fb69b923c4..b1d7d14c0be4 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mpc.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mpc.yaml >> @@ -96,6 +96,6 @@ examples: >> interrupts = <43 2>; >> interrupt-parent = <&mpic>; >> clock-frequency = <400000>; >> - i2c-scl-clk-low-timeout-us = <10000>; >> + i2c-transfer-timeout-us = <10000>; > Chris, can you please give it an ack? > > The whole series is coherent to this change. Looks like you weren't on the To: list for the cover letter which I replied to. For the series Reviewed-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and on a P2041RDB Tested-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
