On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 06:40:07PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

On 01/20, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Bjorn Andersson
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

 .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-qup.txt       | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-qup.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-qup.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-qup.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a99711b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-qup.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Qualcomm Universal Peripheral (QUP) I2C controller
+
+Required properties:
+ - compatible: Should be "qcom,i2c-qup".

Seems a bit generic. All versions of the IP are exactly the same?
"qcom,<chip>-i2c-qup" would be better.

There are different versions of the IP in different SoCs. The
versions for platforms supported upstream are:

	1.1.1 (MSM8660, MSM8960)
	2.2.1 (MSM8974v2)

so how about one of "qcom,i2c-qup-v1.1.1" or
"qcom,i2c-qup-v2.2.1" should be specified as more specific
compatible strings in addition to "qcom,i2c-qup"?

This definitely needs two compatible tags.  The v1.1.1 supports the FIFO, block,
and data mover modes.  The v2.2.1 supports FIFO, block, and BAM DMA.

The BAM patches are currently in review and ideally BAM support can be added to
the I2C.  We'll need a way to differentiate so BAM can be used.

Otherwise, the register interfaces are interchangeable except for BAM specific
fields in the registers.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

-- 
sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation