From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net (mail-out.m-online.net [212.18.0.10]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B7CB7CC1 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:34:46 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <4B5E9ACF.7000206@grandegger.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:33:35 +0100 From: Wolfgang Grandegger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Albrecht_Dre=DF?= Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/2] 5200: improve i2c bus error recovery References: <1264191502.2224.2@antares> <4B5D4E56.3020902@grandegger.com> <1264451219.2315.1@antares> In-Reply-To: <1264451219.2315.1@antares> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Linux PPC Development , Devicetree Discussions , "Ben Dooks \(embedded platforms\)" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Albrecht Dreß wrote: > Am 25.01.10 08:55 schrieb(en) Wolfgang Grandegger: >> Albrecht Dreß wrote: >>> Make the I2C adapter timeout configurable through a Device Tree >>> property which gives the timeout in microseconds. >> >> My understanding is that software properties should not be defined via >> the device tree. I think a sysfs entry is more appropriate. > > Is the timeout really a /software/ property? My feeling is that the > timeout basically depends upon the bus clock and the chips attached to > the bus. Therefore, it is linked closer to the composition of the > board's hardware as described in the device tree, than to any userland > software. Or am I totally wrong here? Well, yes, it seems to be a border case. Wolfgang.