[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190327222439.GC15396@kunai>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 23:24:40 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
Rayagonda Kokatanur <rayagonda.kokatanur@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] dt-bindings: i2c: iproc: add "brcm,iproc-nic-i2c"
compatible string
> Update iProc I2C binding document to add new compatible string
> "brcm,iproc-nic-i2c". Optional property "brcm,ape-hsls-addr-mask" is
> also added that allows configuration of the host view into the APE's
> address for "brcm,iproc-nic-i2c"
I don't know the platform, but wouldn't it be more DT-like to describe
the APE in DT and derive the mask from that information? Custom bindings
with values which are directly poked into a register usually raise my
eyebrow.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists