From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:48:52 +0200 Subject: =?utf-8?B?562U5aSNOiBbUEFUQw==?= =?utf-8?Q?H?= v3 2/2] i2c: imx: Add Vybrid VF610 I2C controller support In-Reply-To: <20130813161214.GV26614@pengutronix.de> References: <1375418648-22760-1-git-send-email-b35083@freescale.com> <1375418648-22760-2-git-send-email-b35083@freescale.com> <20130810140827.GC18085@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130812164354.GF27165@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <52096E77.4040003@wwwdotorg.org> <20130813074620.GR26614@pengutronix.de> <520A5558.708@wwwdotorg.org> <20130813161214.GV26614@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20130815094850.GB2987@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > 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. Dunno if I got all right, so adding my 2 cents: Yes to adding each SoC to the binding docs. No to adding each SoC to the driver as a seperate 'compatible' entry if not really needed to distinguish IP versions. I mean imx31 should have two compatible entries anyhow, one for imx31 and one for imx21 as fallback, no? That all being said: Unless somebody objects, I'll pick the most recent VF610 series today and leave the doc fixup for later. Thanks, Wolfram -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: