[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251024-dark-ringtail-of-defiance-1daabd@kuoka>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 08:45:21 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, joel@....id.au, andi.shyti@...nel.org,
jk@...econstruct.com.au, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
andrew@...econstruct.com.au, p.zabel@...gutronix.de, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
naresh.solanki@...ements.com, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 1/4] dt-bindings: i2c: Split AST2600 binding into a
new YAML
On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 09:35:45AM +0800, Ryan Chen wrote:
> The AST2600 I2C controller is a new hardware design compared to the
> I2C controllers in previous ASPEED SoCs (e.g., AST2400, AST2500).
>
> It introduces new features such as:
> - A redesigned register layout
> - Separation between controller and target mode registers
> - Transfer mode selection (byte, buffer, DMA)
> - Support for a shared global register block for configuration
>
> Due to these fundamental differences, maintaining a separate
> devicetree binding file for AST2600 helps to clearly distinguish
No, that's not a valid reason. You just moved the compatible and are
still 100% identical, at least according to this commit msg, so there is
no point in this patch.
NAK
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists