linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: busses: i2c-st: Add ST I2C controller

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <524BE8FB.40000@st.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:35:55 +0200
From:	Maxime COQUELIN <maxime.coquelin@...com>
To:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Srinivas KANDAGATLA <srinivas.kandagatla@...com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen GALLIMORE <stephen.gallimore@...com>,
	Stuart MENEFY <stuart.menefy@...com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Gabriel FERNANDEZ <gabriel.fernandez@...com>,
	"kernel@...inux.com" <kernel@...inux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: busses: i2c-st: Add ST I2C controller


On 10/02/2013 11:02 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>> +Optional properties :
>>>> +- i2c-min-scl-pulse-width-us : The minimum valid SCL pulse width that is allowed
>>>> +  through the deglitch circuit. In units of us.
>>>> +- i2c-min-sda-pulse-width-us : The minimum valid SDA pulse width that is allowed
>>>> +  through the deglitch circuit. In units of us.
>>> Are those properties specific to this binding, or intended to be
>>> generic? If specific to this binding, a vendor prefix should be present
>>> in the property name. If not, you probably want to document the
>>> properties in some common file.
>> Ok.
>> In last revision, I put this properties as specific to this binding.
>> Wolfram proposed to make this generic, but it looks like this IP is the
>> only one
>> needing such properties.
>>
>> Wolfram, what would you advise?
> It might be the only SoC now, but I could imagine that other will have
> something similar in the future. I am not perfectly sure, though. So, I
> asked for opinions from DT experts when I suggested those bindings. We
> could start with vendor specific bindings and generalize them later if
> similar ones appear. Yet my experience is that old drivers rarely get
> converted to the new bindings.
Ok.
But if I start with vendor specific bindings, we will have to support it
forever, right?
>
>> If you still prefer to make this properties generics, in which file should I
>> document it? I don't see any common i2c binding document for now.
> Yeah, it is missing sadly. That's on my todo-list, like many other
> things...
OK :-)

Thanks,

Maxime
--
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/