[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH take2] [POWERPC] i2c: adds support for i2c bus on 8xx
    Jochen Friedrich wrote:
    >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc885ads.dts
    >>> b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc885ads.dts
    >>> index 8848e63..a526c02 100644
    >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc885ads.dts
    >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc885ads.dts
    >>> @@ -213,6 +213,15 @@
    >>> fsl,cpm-command = <0080>;
    >>> linux,network-index = <2>;
    >>> };
    >>> +
    >>> + i2c@860 {
    >>> + device_type = "i2c";
    >> No device_type.
    > Why? Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt says for I2C interfaces
    > device_type is required and should be "i2c". Is this no longer true?

    booting-without-of.txt should be changed.

    >> Should be fsl,cpm-i2c. Is cpm2 i2c the same? If not, it should be
    >> fsl,cpm1-i2c. It's probably best to specify it anyway, along with
    >> fsl,mpc885-i2c.
    > CPM2 i2c seems to be the same. However, i have no way to test this.

    OK, let's make the compatible "fsl,mpc885-i2c", "fsl,cpm1-i2c",

    For now, match on the last one, but if any differences pop up, we have
    the more specific ones.

    > I noticed cpm1_set_pin32, but this function don't seem to set the
    > odr register. Will this be added? Then it would be:

    Ah, missed that -- there's opendrain support for port E, but I missed
    that port B had it as well. Feel free to add it.

    >> It's a 7-bit address... and are you sure that 0x7e is unique? Does this
    >> driver even support slave operation?
    > It's in fact 0x7F << 1.

    Gah, I hate powerpc bit numbering, especially without the
    numbered-as-if-64-bit hack. I specifically looked at the manual before
    to see if it was shifted, saw "0-6", and concluded it wasn't. :-P

    > The same value is used in the 2.4 driver and
    > in u-boot, as well.

    That doesn't mean that this isn't a good time to review what the code is
    doing. :-)

    > Slave operation is not supported.

    If slave operation isn't supported, how is this value used?

    >> Why is an 8xx driver matching all i2c cpm (i.e. what about cpm2)?
    > With the suggested change to use fsl,cpm-command, the driver should
    > be able to use both cpm1 and cpm2. The operation and structs for i2c
    > are identical. The only difference might be the hack^wsupport for
    > relocation.

    OK. Would that allow it to become one driver, rather than a wrapper and
    an algorithm?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-17 21:45    [W:0.022 / U:0.908 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site