From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime COQUELIN Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: busses: i2c-st: Add ST I2C controller Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:35:55 +0200 Message-ID: <524BE8FB.40000@st.com> 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> <20131002090257.GA3059@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131002090257.GA3059@katana> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang 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 On 10/02/2013 11:02 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>>> +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 >> only one >> needing such properties. >> >> 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. Ok. But if I start with vendor specific bindings, we will have to support it forever, right? > >> If you still prefer to make this properties generics, in which file should 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... OK :-) Thanks, Maxime