Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] i2c: busses: i2c-st: Add ST I2C controller

On 17/10/13 15:19, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:

On 10:33 Thu 17 Oct     , srinivas kandagatla wrote:

quoted

On 17/10/13 08:27, Maxime COQUELIN wrote:

quoted

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+
+static struct of_device_id st_i2c_match[] = {
+     { .compatible = "st,comms-ssc-i2c", },

the rules is to put the first soc that use the ip in the compatible
as st,sti7100-scc-i2c

Ok. There are no plans to upstream the SH4 platforms, it will only 
remains in stlinux.com.
Maybe I can set the first ARM platform (STiH415)?
That would give st,stih415-ssc-i2c.

NAK, for st,stih415-ssc-i2c naming.

IMO, this makes sense when the same IP integration done on different SOC
changes slightly/very differently.

But in this case the "comms" IP remains unchanged across all the SOCs.

I would still prefer "st,comms-ssc-i2c", allowing a single device driver
to match against several SoCs. ST "comms" IP it is integrated across all
the STi series of SoCs, so we don't want to add new entry in compatible
for every new SOC.

you never need this you always the first SoC that's all

Sorry to ask this but, Where is this requirement coming from?
I have not spotted any thing as such in ePAPR specs.


All the spec says is.
===
The compatible property value consists of one or more strings that
define the specific programming model for the device. This list of
strings should be used by a client program for device driver selection.
The property value consists of a concatenated list of null terminated
strings, *from most specific to most general.* They allow a device to
express its compatibility with a family of similar devices, potentially
allowing a single device driver to match against several devices.
The recommended format is “manufacturer,model”, where manufacturer is a
string describing the name of the manufacturer (such as an OUI), and
model specifies the model number.

Example:
compatible = “fsl,mpc8641-uart”, “ns16550";
In this example, an operating system would first try to locate a device
driver that supported fsl,mpc8641-uart. If a driver was not found, it
would then try to locate a driver that supported the more general
ns16550 device type.
===

The more general compatible string in this case is "st,comms-ssc-i2c",
rather than the first soc name.
How can a first SOC name be more general?

As this driver is not very specific to StiH415, it is generic driver for
ST comms-ssc-i2c block.

Thanks,
srini

see other bindings on at91 as example sorry NACK

Best Regards,
J.

quoted

Thanks,
srini

quoted

Thanks for the review,
Maxime

quoted

quoted