From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <scottwood@freescale.com>
Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net (de01egw01.freescale.net
	[192.88.165.102])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "de01egw01.freescale.net",
	Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B989BDDE16
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 18 May 2007 05:40:00 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <464CADBB.9050500@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:32:11 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] powerpc: Document device nodes for I2C devices.
References: <20070517143846.GC29795@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net>
	<8183195dad79296e3986f561bf929067@kernel.crashing.org>
In-Reply-To: <8183195dad79296e3986f561bf929067@kernel.crashing.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, i2c@lm-sensors.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> +   Required properties :
>> +
>> +    - reg : Unshifted 7-bit I2C address for the device
> 
> What about 10-bit addressing, etc.?

I specified 7-bit to address someone's question back when this first 
came up of whether it was 7-bit unshifted or 8-bit shifted.  Perhaps it 
should just say "Unshifted I2C address for the device"?

>> +   Recommended properties :
>> +
>> +    - compatible : The name of the Linux device driver that
>> +      handles this device.  If unspecified, the name of the
>> +      node will be used.
> 
> NO WAY

Sorry, that was left in there from a while ago and I missed it.  It 
should be defined the same way as any other compatible property (and the 
i2c code in Linux should be fixed to allow drivers to specify multiple 
match names).  No need for shouting. :-)

>> +    - interrupts : <a b> where a is the interrupt number and b is a
> 
> I2C doesn't do interrupts,

...but some I2C devices do.

> this doesn't belong in an I2C binding; it's redundant anyway

I guess it's implicit that any device that generates interrupts will 
have an interrupts property, though there are many other examples of 
this sort of redundancy in booting-without-of.txt.  Its inclusion was 
mainly an example.

 > (and incorrect as well).

How is it incorrect?

-Scott