On 07:59 Fri 09 Mar , Rob Herring wrote: > On 03/09/2012 03:53 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 11:08 Thu 08 Mar , Rob Herring wrote: > >> On 03/08/2012 02:50 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > >>> For now on use i2c-gpio driver on the same pin as the hardware IP. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: [email protected] > >>> --- > >>> v3: > >>> > >>> update i2c binding (Rob comments) > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> J. > >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi | 13 +++++++++++++ > >>> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi > >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi > >>> index 4b0dc99..072b2da 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi > >>> @@ -189,4 +189,17 @@ > >>> status = "disabled"; > >>> }; > >>> }; > >>> +> > + i2c-gpio@0 { > >> > >> You updated the example, but not all the actual uses to i2c@0. > > on purpose as on some soc we will have HW and soft binding > > > > on the board you put the alias > > > > I'm not sure I follow. > > If you use the h/w block, then you would have i2c@<addr> while for gpio > it's basically an index. > > Also, I don't think you need an alias for i2c. You should not care about > bus numbering as devices should be sub nodes. forget about it tired when I reply
Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
