linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/17] dt-bindings: i2c: microchip: corei2c: Add PIC64GX as compatible with driver

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20240725-cycling-nature-5e0157e180e3@spud>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:24:28 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
	Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@...rochip.com>,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] dt-bindings: i2c: microchip: corei2c: Add PIC64GX
 as compatible with driver

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 01:16:02PM +0100, pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com wrote:
> From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com>
> 
> PIC64GX i2c is compatible with the MPFS driver

Please don't talk about drivers, bindings are for hardware.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml
> index afa3db726229..4ba8a27eb8e5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml
> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ properties:
>        - items:
>            - const: microchip,mpfs-i2c # Microchip PolarFire SoC compatible SoCs
>            - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core
> +      - items:
> +          - const: microchip,pic64gx-i2c
> +          - const: microchip,mpfs-i2c # Microchip PolarFire SoC compatible SoCs

Why is an mpfs-i2c fallback required? Can't we just fall back to the
fabric IP?

Cheers,
Conor.

> +          - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core
>        - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core
>  
>    reg:
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 
> 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)