答复: [PATCH v3 2/2] i2c: imx: Add Vybrid VF610 I2C controller support

[s.hauer@pengutronix.de (s.hauer at pengutronix.de)]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 09:48:40AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/13/2013 01:46 AM, s.hauer at pengutronix.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:23:35PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 08/12/2013 10:43 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>>> The binding string for i2c-imx driver in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-imx.txt use a wildcard format
> >>>> of "- compatible : Should be "fsl,<chip>-i2c" " for device using this driver. Neither fsl,imx1-i2c nor fsl,imx21-i2c
> >>>> is described in the binding document. So I just leave the vf610 i2c compatible with this. 
> >>>
> >>> I'm not a big fan on wildcards in bindings, as it leaves people free to
> >>> put anything in and claim it's a documented binding, and makes it far
> >>> harder for an os to actually implement drivers for said binding, as
> >>> there's no canonical reference for the set of valid variations.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously there is some precedent, but I'm not sure it's something we
> >>> want to stick with, and we can prevent it my updating the documentation
> >>> now.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone else have an opinion?
> >>
> >> I suppose technically we should list out every exact string in the
> >> binding, but it's a little annoying to have to update the binding doc
> >> every time a new chip comes out (and I expect that'll happen more and
> >> more!) just to add a new compatible value since all the differences are
> >> known internally to the driver and don't impact the binding...
> > 
> > We would only have to update the the docs when an incompatible SoC comes
> > out. For this particular driver this would be all marked with a star:
> > 
> > * i.MX1
> > * i.MX21
> >   i.MX25
> >   i.MX27
> >   i.MX31
> >   i.MX35
> >   i.MX51
> >   i.MX53
> >   i.MX6
> > * Vybrid
> > 
> > That's not too many updates to the binding docs since 2001.
> > (The SPI core changed with nearly every SoC version though)
> 
> So, the SPI core changed its HW implementation, or changed its
> SW-visible interface? If the latter, then you need a separate compatible
> value for each, which was my point.

It changed the SW-visible interface.

I vote for having the exact SoC revision in the binding documentation
rather than wildcards or references to the list of i.MX SoCs. Otherwise
only the driver code gives a clue that the i2c driver matches imx1-i2c,
imx21-i2c and vf610-i2c, but not imx31-i2c.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |