From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w.sang@pengutronix.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:41:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2 V3] MXS: Implement DMA support into mxs-i2c In-Reply-To: <201207211611.58956.marex@denx.de> References: <1341850974-11977-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de> <20120715081715.GA2429@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <20120721124406.GA9946@pengutronix.de> <201207211611.58956.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <20120721154153.GA25874@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > Yet, if I know the compatible property for the mxs I2C driver, and also > > know the CPU type (be it MX23 or MX28), I can deduce from that a lot of > > information, including DMA channel. That is fix. Why encode it? > > You know the compatible and the "fallback compatible". From the later one, you > can deduce nothing if that happens to kick in. Even if the driver was matched because of an MX23-I2C "compatible" binding, both devicetree and runtime could provide data that it actually runs on MX28. That shouldn't be a problem. > btw. the PIO discussion on DT discuss is completely ignored. How shall we > proceed, this driver is stalled for too long. IIRC I mentioned that a discussion about the bindings won't make the next merge window. That's why I proposed either module_parameter or dropping the binding entirely as possible inbetween options. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: