[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:0.066 / U:5.000 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site