Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: STi: Supply I2C configuration to STiH416 SoC

[Lee Jones <lee.jones-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

> > Am not very comfortable with this idea.
> >
> > As there is no guarantee that the interrupt number/memory map and the
> > i2c numbering will be same in future SOCs or other IPs.
> >
> > You might be already aware that the number of i2cs on each SOC are
> > different as example on STiH415 we have 10 SSCs and on STiH416 we have
> > 11 SSCs. So, At what point you decide that which devices/IPs should be
> > in stih41x and which should in stih415/Stih416?
> Yes, I know there is one more SSC on STiH416.
> 
> On one hand, this could add some confusion. But on the other hand,
> someone who will need to activate a SSP will know which one he has
> to activate.
> 
> > Each i2c node will save around 5 lines if we common it up, but if the
> > interrupt number or map changes this difference will be negligible.
> >
> > Common up at this level and mixing un-common ones in stih415.dtsi or
> > stih416.dtsi will add confusion to readers as the information is split
> > at multiple places.
> I agree it will be messy if one part of the node declared at one place,
> and the rest at another place.
> >
> > IMO the common up idea sounds good but reduces the readability and has
> > no effect on final dtb size.
> 
> Fair enough. Lee, are you ok with keeping it as is?

To be honest I haven't taken a look at the layout of the dts[i] files
yet, so I can't really comment. Srini knows then better than anyone,
so if he says it doesn't make sense, then I'm happy to take his word
for it.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html