Timur Tabi wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> static const struct of_device_id mpc_i2c_of_match[] = {
>> {.compatible = "fsl,mpc5200b-i2c", .data = fsl_i2c_mpc5200b_set_freq, },
>> {.compatible = "fsl,mpc5200-i2c", .data = fsl_i2c_mpc5200_set_freq, },
>> {.compatible = "fsl,mpc8260-i2c", .data = fsl_i2c_mpc8xxx_set_freq, },
>> {.compatible = "fsl,mpc8349-i2c", .data = fsl_i2c_mpc8xxx_set_freq, },
>> {.compatible = "fsl,mpc8540-i2c", .data = fsl_i2c_mpc8xxx_set_freq, },
>> {.compatible = "fsl,mpc8543-i2c", .data =
>> fsl_i2c_mpc8xxx_div2_set_freq, },
>> {.compatible = "fsl,mpc8544-i2c", .data =
>> fsl_i2c_mpc8xxx_div3_set_freq, },
>
> So we need to update this table every time there's a new SOC? All 83xx, 85xx,
> and 86xx SOCs use the same table. I'd prefer an implementation that does
> need a
> specific entry for each variant of 8[356]xx.
We could add a property "source-clock-divider = <2/3>" if it's needed!?
Wolfgang.
_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
i2c@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
