Hi Andi, On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 02:35:54AM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:04:43PM GMT, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:03:55AM +0200, Stefan Eichenberger wrote: > > > Hi Andi, > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:21:30AM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > > > > @@ -1468,6 +1473,8 @@ static int i2c_imx_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > > goto rpm_disable; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > + i2c_imx->multi_master = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, "multi-master"); > > > > > + > > > > > > > > you might also want to add the multi-master boolean property in > > > > the binding. > > > > > > We discussed this internally and weren't sure when it was required > > > because e.g. i2c-rcar and i2c-tegra don't have it documented in their > > > bindings. Is it still required if it is part of the dt-schema? > > > https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/schemas/i2c/i2c-controller.yaml > > > > The i2c-imx.yaml has "unevaluatedProperties: false", which fill discard > > every thing not in this yaml > > > > > If so, I will add it in the next version. > > > > Yes, please. > > sorry for the confusion, please don't add it. I had a chat with > Krzysztof and I will quote him: "this is a core property, coming > with dtschema, so they dont need to update bindings". > > He also sent a cleanup to remove the only binding using it. No problem, thanks for the clarification. Should I still separate the multi-master patch from the rest of the series, even though it doesn't seem to fix the problem Fabio sees? I did some more testing today and the workarounds he found do not solve the problem I see, so they are definitely not the same. Regards, Stefan
