Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: iProc: define Broadcom iProc I2C binding

Ray Jui
2014-12-10T03:27:21Z

On 12/9/2014 7:12 PM, Varka Bhadram wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com
> <mailto:rjui@broadcom.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/9/2014 5:27 PM, Varka Bhadram wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday 10 December 2014 06:24 AM, Ray Jui wrote:
>
> Document the I2C device tree binding for Broadcom iProc
> family of
> SoCs
>
> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com
> <mailto:rjui@broadcom.com>>
> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com
> <mailto:sbranden@broadcom.com>>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/__brcm,iproc-i2c.txt | 37
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644
> Documentation/devicetree/__bindings/i2c/brcm,iproc-i2c.__txt
>
> diff --git
> a/Documentation/devicetree/__bindings/i2c/brcm,iproc-i2c.__txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/__bindings/i2c/brcm,iproc-i2c.__txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..81f982c
> --- /dev/null
> +++
> b/Documentation/devicetree/__bindings/i2c/brcm,iproc-i2c.__txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> +Broadcom iProc I2C controller
> +
> +Required properties:
> +
> +- compatible:
> + Must be "brcm,iproc-i2c"
> +
> +- reg:
> + Define the base and range of the I/O address space that
> contain
> the iProc
> + I2C controller registers
> +
> +- interrupts:
> + Should contain the I2C interrupt
> +
> +- clock-frequency:
> + This is the I2C bus clock. Need to be either 100000 or
> 400000
> +
> +- #address-cells:
> + Always 1 (for I2C addresses)
> +
> +- #size-cells:
> + Always 0
> +
>
>
> All the properties defined with two lines of statements.
>
> Why cant they be with single line statement, like:
>
> compatible: Must be "brcm,iproc-i2c"
> reg: Define the base and range of the I/O address space that
> contain the iProc I2C controller registers
>
> ....
>
>
> I thought making them two lines are more readable (and obviously
> that's very subjective, :)). But more importantly, it matches the
> format of other Broadcom iProc/Cygnus devicetree binding documents
> that are currently in progress of upstreaming.
>
>
> But max of the bindings over the kernel follows single line statements.
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> Varka Bhadram.
Is it a requirement for these property descriptions to be one line? If
not, I prefer to stick with the way it is now. Thanks.