From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?562U5aSNOiBbUEFUQw==?= =?utf-8?Q?H?= v3 2/2] i2c: imx: Add Vybrid VF610 I2C controller support Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:48:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20130815094850.GB2987@katana> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kXdP64Ggrk/fb43R" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130813161214.GV26614-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "s.hauer-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org" Cc: Stephen Warren , Mark Rutland , Lu Jingchang-B35083 , Estevam Fabio-R49496 , Li Xiaochun-B41219 , "linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Jin Zhengxiong-R64188 , "shawn.guo-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, ian.campbell-Sxgqhf6Nn4DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, tomasz.figa-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --kXdP64Ggrk/fb43R Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > 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 --kXdP64Ggrk/fb43R Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSDKQBAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2Zs4P/i9K2jTiSgBDOAes1VhUzxVz tOTudzkYPCzp+LP4AWe6sc+cJxnnC3sQOlNPRNr9ecrZw1MfC3PvDX43lr7nd0p2 wuIjPcAnX8RkXTt3nBcGch/BH2xefS1WnQ/0MLhDRxs5SlGGLHBhAlV0KD6Y2aZH dsS2zinUWM8z4Zr1t9eb0JS+p7wbvH4JuXY5cZMg3zn+KIbfFRtImfJ3kz6Ko/35 GluriBykleQT4z3h3sdAl9OwVCxuvlwBTZ5qX9XsyFFqeRmf7D4NyhlmbP8r7FI7 T8LVIoLKRwoFeg3GFvdRb15L7lI9JEKuTR283qBzsVYU3+BbR4OCv8aFvevG/oty L6pZAn8AwvIqrahUf2EjShlTYQge/d4rjZmWmkiP2jqpA44KerjmlwPHdfvlOpHk lkbQAnDeP1b5eZnS5dCe2gWh7bDpzOzdWVJ6gviQckIfaaLPvEzu50L80cTmaFHw Orn/yc4VEFmE9y00rw8E9+QX/Dy/X2q3KUC4IU23cQQ61f/JfWKlllU2H4n5S7nr C46xWRO0SoFqJUVngA4+3xCTgxGMmZfcRPQLjkojFm8pqL0A60Yon59v8qyxyN4I y6G1VK11EQ5YzreV4UUWuBtC7mEkfo16ZPjOCvCl/+TZPCCAwik5GjhHsDjvoP7G uEwb7O0fxqeGmkq3bE8N =blSP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kXdP64Ggrk/fb43R--