Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] i2c: pnx: Fix bit definitions

[Roland Stigge <stigge-uj/7R2tJ6VmzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>]

On 08/20/2012 06:26 PM, Kevin Wells wrote:
>>>> This patch for i2c-pnx affects PNX4008 and LPC32xx (and LPC31xx,
>>>> not yet in mainline). Can you please test and double-check the
>>>> manuals of PNX4008 and LPC31xx? I only found this via the manual
>>>> of LPC32xx but assume it's the same for the others, also.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>> Kevin, since the other manuals seem to be not easily available, can
>>> you please check?
>>
>> Yes, would be great if someone at NXP could confirm that PNX actually
>> uses the same IP core for the I2C controller as LPCs do (which is
>> currently assumed by Linux anyway).
> 
> I've never had my hands on a PNX4008 chip at NXP, but I do believe they
> are the same IP. That specific I2C IP was used in a number of NXP/Phillips
> chips besides the PNX4008/LPC32xx. I don't think there are any PNX4008's in
> the wild, and even working in NXP, I can't find any non-marketing reference
> material for that part (including the user manual).

Considering this, it might be a good idea to remove support for PNX4008
(arch/arm/mach-pnx4008/) altogether. It's hard to maintain support for
hardware which isn't available, even at NXP. It would also simplify
maintenance of mach-lpc32xx because the overlap currently makes me
always wonder if the respective changes still work with mach-pnx4008.

Any opposition?

Roland


PS: I just wonder how mach-pnx4008 came into the kernel at all...