[PATCH v3 5/9] Documentation: DT: add entries for I2SE boards
From: robh@kernel.org (Rob Herring)
Date: 2017-02-08 14:37:09
Also in:
linux-devicetree
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Michael Heimpold [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Rob, thanks for your review. Some questions below: Am 01.02.2017 um 18:18 schrieb Rob Herring:quoted
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 07:51:11AM +0100, Michael Heimpold wrote:quoted
From: Michael Heimpold <redacted>"dt-bindings: arm:" is preferred subject prefix.Will change it in next round.quoted
quoted
This patch adds the missing devicetree binding documentation for I2SE's Duckbill and Duckbill 2 series boards. Signed-off-by: Michael Heimpold <redacted> Cc: Stefan Wahren <redacted> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/i2se.txt | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/i2se.txtdiff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/i2se.txtb/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/i2se.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9954d86--- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/i2se.txt@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +I2SE Device Tree Bindings +------------------------- + +Duckbill Board +Required root node properties: + - compatible = "i2se,duckbill", "fsl,imx28"; + +Duckbill 2 Board +Required root node properties: + - compatible = "i2se,duckbill", "fsl,imx28"; + +Duckbill 2 485 Board +Required root node properties: + - compatible = "i2se,duckbill", "fsl,imx28"; + +Duckbill 2 EnOcean Board +Required root node properties: + - compatible = "i2se,duckbill", "fsl,imx28"; + +Duckbill 2 SPI Board +Required root node properties: + - compatible = "i2se,duckbill", "fsl,imx28";It's kind of pointless to have "i2se,duckbill" if you use the same one for all these boards.At the moment, this is only used to fix-up the MAC address' OUI part in mxs_machine_init. So my proposal would be to use compatible = "i2se,duckbill-2", "fsl,imx28"; for the Duckbill 2 board and something like compatible = "i2se,duckbill-2-485", "i2se,duckbill-2", "fsl,imx28"; for the rest. This way we need to add only one additional check in mxs_machine_init check. Would this be a way to go?
Yes, that is fine. Rob