From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: busses: i2c-st: Add ST I2C controller Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:02:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20131002090257.GA3059@katana> References: <1380623952-4252-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@st.com> <1380623952-4252-2-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@st.com> <524B346C.8070607@wwwdotorg.org> <524BDB00.3010508@st.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <524BDB00.3010508@st.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Maxime COQUELIN Cc: Stephen Warren , Srinivas KANDAGATLA , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Rob Landley , Russell King , Grant Likely , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen GALLIMORE , Stuart MENEFY , Lee Jones , Gabriel FERNANDEZ , "kernel@stlinux.com" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >> +Optional properties : > >> +- i2c-min-scl-pulse-width-us : The minimum valid SCL pulse width that= is allowed > >> + through the deglitch circuit. In units of us. > >> +- i2c-min-sda-pulse-width-us : The minimum valid SDA pulse width that= is allowed > >> + through the deglitch circuit. In units of us. > > Are those properties specific to this binding, or intended to be > > generic? If specific to this binding, a vendor prefix should be present > > in the property name. If not, you probably want to document the > > properties in some common file. > Ok. > In last revision, I put this properties as specific to this binding. > Wolfram proposed to make this generic, but it looks like this IP is the= =20 > only one > needing such properties. >=20 > Wolfram, what would you advise? It might be the only SoC now, but I could imagine that other will have something similar in the future. I am not perfectly sure, though. So, I asked for opinions from DT experts when I suggested those bindings. We could start with vendor specific bindings and generalize them later if similar ones appear. Yet my experience is that old drivers rarely get converted to the new bindings. > If you still prefer to make this properties generics, in which file shoul= d I > document it? I don't see any common i2c binding document for now. Yeah, it is missing sadly. That's on my todo-list, like many other things... Regards, Wolfram --ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSS+FBAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2/scP/1bT7YqvhOtcIKhtOTu1pgXT NFSg8K2wWjukKx3QdrRsg5TvjHqjLJnOoS/H9nOWods1reZp4tVqH1EvemCh5koF +1F/PCCGm6vI9eiqBd0c2RTN4xPgZAyaXNnPVneDn91SCQY5ZizqFYHDN+PfmLtg XR5/g6FjxnPv05ifxKpprR9LCHFUd3r76GVGSp2fm+LiPxv135IaO2i5aUegu1Ht Bkq3UatMoteCD4C1kkW1V+f1RQ94r5JzKWfMRuGKMRATOpnxs4+Ipdt7nRqTbxVL ytHRxZxz/hE8Ia1CAhgsGynz8SmQxfHTZXhVEYeuFHbIQs+dlauMFC1XiE718jux 5+VTDOdrvbicC8gzn8erYf/348vSPFN3tNyZep5CbRBZrxi4DmwiRUr6MjpXyX8D 293XfEax0zw2E9w8jDKGDoCBVtaXTqINFpDwOP10YuF0DCK+2B6QNJrboD4zRo3R 0jfEvJrtfQPDwgu+RSH0jJxlRmWMC9y1EkytoWHu5TzlMm4wQe8zp9gzam8zT86K mAaeXx5F1OO1RwKdW16v5NbIaziE9hlgwCMwRAV0iQW3apTk/mwtddP2tTzyHtL/ Nc6mIHTN3tv8M6S39TUMGVBAwAJrDYIRnv7qjfUwEspdcMy2VuwAoofsc3w8dA6+ aZcGCNVQSAx8fzQU4/G8 =LuFj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH--