On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:53 AM Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 12:36 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:33:31PM +0200, amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Added a YAML schema to support tpm tis i2c realted dt-bindings for the I2c PTP based physical layer. > > > > Wrap your commmit message. And TPM, TIS?, and I2C should be capitalized. > > Thanks, ill fix that. > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../bindings/security/tpm/tpm-tis-i2c.yaml | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm-tis-i2c.yaml > > > > Please read my comments on v1 (The first v1 from 11/10, not the 2nd v1 > > you sent). > > I sent a follow up comment regarding this: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11236253/ > (2nd v1 was sent by mistake. sorry about that) Sorry I missed your reply. However, you didn't address these comments: > There's a bigger issue that the h/w here is more than just an I2C > protocol. The chip may have multiple power supplies, clocks, reset > lines, etc. HID over I2C seems like a similar case. Does the spec define > *all* of that? If not, you need chip specific compatibles. You can keep > this as a fallback though. To rephrase this, a protocol does not fully describe the h/w and DT should describe the h/w. Also, you should include the interrupt whether you use it in the driver currently or not. Again, it's about describing the h/w, not what a driver happens to use ATM. Rob
