Hi Ryan,

quoted

OK, but the ast2400 and ast2500 I2C peripherals - which this binding also
describes - do not have that facility. Given the 2600 is a distinct peripheral (as
discussed on the v16 series), this would seem to warrant a distinct binding.

Should this be split out into an ast2600-specific binding, to reflect that it is
different hardware? The reference to the global registers and transfer modes
would then be added only to the ast2600-i2c-bus binding.

I agree it would be cleaner to split out a new binding file specifically for AST2600,
for example: `aspeed,ast2600-i2c.yaml`
But also I think `aspeed,i2cv2.yaml` more better name, that compatible will 
support next generation such like AST2700 .....

The ship may have already sailed on that one, as you already have the
existing compatible string describing existing hardware.

I would assume that the compatible string should be fixed for an
instance of the specific hardware, but the DT maintainers may be able to
provide some input/precedence on changing an existing binding, if
necessary.

If this does get changed, I would expect that you would need a
corresponding update in the old driver too.

Or, another option may be to keep the current generation ("v2 core with
compat registers") as-is (ie., at ast2600-i2c-bus), and introduce a new
string for the next - where the primary hardware change might be the
removal of compat registers, but it's still new hardware

Cheers,


Jeremy