From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <scottwood@freescale.com>
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-bn1on0131.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.56.110.131])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 263FC1A017A
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:41:52 +1100 (AEDT)
Message-ID: <1416966097.15957.171.camel@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c-qoriq: modified compatibility for correct prescaler
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:41:37 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20141125181347.GC9716@katana>
References: <1413538026-15739-1-git-send-email-valentin.longchamp@keymile.com>
 <1414537731.23458.120.camel@snotra.buserror.net>
 <5450AC85.40302@keymile.com> <20141113003418.GE2062@katana>
 <5465B285.7070005@keymile.com> <20141114082832.GA2180@katana>
 <1416274083.15957.96.camel@freescale.com> <20141125181347.GC9716@katana>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Valentin Longchamp <valentin.longchamp@keymile.com>,
 Linux device trees <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, "Boschung,
 Rainer" <Rainer.Boschung@keymile.com>, "Brunck,
 Holger" <Holger.Brunck@keymile.com>, Linux I2C <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
 Linux PowerPC Kernel <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 19:13 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 07:28:03PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 09:28 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we're going to change the device tree I'd rather just add a property
> > > > > to say what the prescaler is.
> > > > 
> > > >  We would however, leave the boards' device trees that use things like
> > > > "fsl,mpc8543-i2c" as is and introduce the prescaler for the others requiring it.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Now the drawback is that the driver would require a change, to parse this
> > > > prescaler new prescaler property. Would this be OK from your point of view
> > > > Wolfram ? If yes, I will send the patches for it.
> > > 
> > > I don't think it is OK.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Because I thought it could be deduced. Then, a seperate property would
> not be OK.
> 
> > >  I'd think it can be deduced from the compatible property.
> > 
> > For almost all existing device trees it cannot be.
> 
> Pity :( If we do introduce a new property, it should probably be
> "clock-div". Grepping through binding documentation, that seems
> accepted. We should ask DT maintainers, too, to be safe.
> 
> > If you want something that will work without changing device trees,
> > you'll need to use SVR to identify the SoC.
> 
> The driver is doing that already, see mpc_i2c_get_sec_cfg_8xxx(). Dunno
> if it makes sense to add to it for consistency reasons?

That's not SVR, but sure.  Better to avoid messing with existing device
trees.

-Scott