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

From: [email-masked] (Wolfram Sang)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:02:57 +0200

> >> +Optional properties :
> >> +- i2c-min-scl-pulse-width-us : The minimum valid SCL pulse width that is allowed
> >> +  through the deglitch circuit. In units of us.
> >> +- i2c-min-sda-pulse-width-us : The minimum valid SDA pulse width that is allowed
> >> +  through the deglitch circuit. In units of us.
> > Are those properties specific to this binding, or intended to be
> > generic? If specific to this binding, a vendor prefix should be present
> > in the property name. If not, you probably want to document the
> > properties in some common file.
> Ok.
> In last revision, I put this properties as specific to this binding.
> Wolfram proposed to make this generic, but it looks like this IP is the 
> only one
> needing such properties.
> 
> Wolfram, what would you advise?

It might be the only SoC now, but I could imagine that other will have
something similar in the future. I am not perfectly sure, though. So, I
asked for opinions from DT experts when I suggested those bindings. We
could start with vendor specific bindings and generalize them later if
similar ones appear. Yet my experience is that old drivers rarely get
converted to the new bindings.

> If you still prefer to make this properties generics, in which file should I
> document it? I don't see any common i2c binding document for now.

Yeah, it is missing sadly. That's on my todo-list, like many other
things...

Regards,

   Wolfram
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131002/7ae1dd60/attachment.sig>