[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130502112721.GA7309@the-dreams.de>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 13:27:21 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Naveen Krishna Ch <naveenkrishna.ch@...il.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
sjg@...omium.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH v7] i2c: exynos5: add High Speed I2C controller
driver
Hi,
> >> + - Samsung GPIO variant (deprecated):
> >> + - gpios: The order of the gpios should be the following: <SDA, SCL>.
> >> + The gpio specifier depends on the gpio controller.
> >
> > Huh? Why should we support a deprecated method with a new driver?
> >
This was left unanswered. I am curious.
> >> +Optional properties:
> >> + - samsung,hs-mode: Mode of operation, High speed or Fast speed mode. If not
> >> + specified, default value is 0.
> >> + - samsung,hs-clock-freq: Desired operating frequency in Hz of the bus.
> >> + If not specified, the default value in Hz is 100000.
> >> + - samsung,fs-clock-freq: Desired operarting frequency in Hz of the bus.
> >> + If not specified, the default value in Hz is 100000.
> >
> > NACK! We have a generic binding for defining the bus speed. And
> > shouldn't hs-mode be set depending on the bus speed?
Please use "clock-frequency" here, like other drivers do.
> >> + /* In auto mode the length of xfer cannot be 0 */
> >> + if (i2c->msg->len == 0)
> >> + i2c_auto_conf |= 0x1;
> >
> > So you send some byte then? Why not reject the message?
> This is to support the probing the devices (i2cdetect cases)
No! This is not a proper SMBUS_QUICK if you send a byte! If it doesn't
work without sending data, then your device does not support it. This is
not uncommon. Please check the smbus specs if you are unsure.
> >> + i2c->regs = of_iomap(np, 0);
> >
> > devm_ioremap_resource()
> This was a comment from Thomas on v1.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/27/264
>
> Kindly, suggest me which one is more optimal in this case.
"Optimal" is difficult here, but devm_* has momentum and I prefer
consistency.
> Thanks for your valuable time and comments
You're welcome! Thanks for the submission.
Wolfram
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists