Re: [PATCH] i2c: designware: Add support for AMD Seattle I2C

[Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2171 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:49:59PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> Mika,
> 
> On 12/16/2015 8:54 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:29:38AM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 12/16/2015 03:16 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >>>> >On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:14:34PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>>>> >>Hi Mika,
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>On 12/15/15 15:55, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>>>>> >>>Add device HID AMDI0510 to match the I2C controlers on AMD Seattle platform
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>>Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit<Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
> >>>>>> >>>---
> >>>>>> >>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
> >>>>>> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>>diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >>>>>> >>>index 57f623b..a027154 100644
> >>>>>> >>>--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >>>>>> >>>+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >>>>>> >>>@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
> >>>>>> >>>  	{ "80860F41", 0 },
> >>>>>> >>>  	{ "808622C1", 0 },
> >>>>>> >>>  	{ "AMD0010", 0 },
> >>>>>> >>>+	{ "AMDI0510", 0 },
> >>>>>> >>>  	{ }
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>Since this driver seems to be used by several SOCs, and we have been adding
> >>>>> >>the HID from various SOC vendors. Do you think it would be better to assign
> >>>>> >>a CID so that each SOC vendor can specify in their ACPI DSDT and we can
> >>>>> >>match them here?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Sure _CID would work here.
> >>>
> >>>Do you know if Synopsys has already provided a CID that we can use for this?
> >No.
> >
> >>>If not, who do you think should provide this?
> >Why can't you make _CID for AMD part only? For Intel we are going to get
> >new IDs for every major SoC release no matter what.
> >
> Actually, after discussed with the team. We have decided to go with the
> AMDI0510 at this point, and we will reuse this as CID in future SOC if it
> contains compatible I2C controller.

So, can I take the patch as is?


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]