Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: i2c: exynos5: Add samsung,exynos8895-hsi2c compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 17/12/2024 10:08, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>>>>>        - items:
>>>>>            - enum:
>>>>> @@ -94,9 +95,28 @@ allOf:
>>>>>          - clock-names
>>>>>  
>>>>>      else:
>>>>> -      properties:
>>>>> -        clocks:
>>>>> -          maxItems: 1
>>>>> +      if:
>>>>> +        properties:
>>>>> +          compatible:
>>>>> +            contains:
>>>>> +              enum:
>>>>> +                - samsung,exynos8895-hsi2c
>>>>> +
>>>>> +      then:
>>>>> +        properties:
>>>>> +          clocks:
>>>> Missing minItems
>>>>
>>>>> +            maxItems: 2
>>>>> +
>>>>> +          clock-names:
>>>> Ditto
>>>>
>>>>> +            maxItems: 2
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        required:
>>>>> +          - clock-names
>>>> I don't understand why do you need second, same branch in if, basically
>>> Because, as I stated in the commit message, we have HSI2C controllers
>>> both implemented in USIv1 blocks and outside. These that are a part of
>> On Exynos8895? Where? With the same compatible?
> 
> hsi2c_0 which has a clock from BUSC and hsi2c_1 to hsi2c_4 which use clocks
> from PERIC1 (CLK_GOUT_PERIC1_HSI2C_CAM{0,1,2,3}_IPCLK). Why would
> they need a different compatible though? It's functionally the same i2c design
> as the one implemented in USIv1 blocks.
If one block is part of USI and other not, they might not be the same
I2C blocks, even if interface is similar. If they were the same or even
functionally the same, they would have the same clock inputs. However
user manual also suggests that there is only one clock, not two (for
both cases), so they could be functionally equivalent but then number of
clocks looks incorrect.

Best regards,
Krzysztof