On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:05:24PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > On 16/07/2013 10:05, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi Gregory, > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:24:36PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > >> The I2C Transaction Generator offloads CPU from managing I2C transfer step > >> by step. > >> > >> This feature is currently only available on Armada XP, so usage of this > >> mechanism is activated through device tree. > >> > >> Based on the work of Piotr Ziecik and rewrote to use the new way of > >> handling multiples i2c messages. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Piotr Ziecik <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Gregory > >> CLEMENT <[email protected]> --- > >> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c | 207 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 196 insertions(+), > >> 11 deletions(-) > > > > [...] > > > >> + /* + * For controllers embedded in new SoCs activate the + * > >> Transaction Generator support. + */ + if > >> (of_device_is_compatible(np, "marvell,mv78230-i2c")) + > >> drv_data->offload_enabled = true; + > > > > Do you have a reason for not adding it to the match table? I mean, you will > > introduce a new compatible here, but if that compatible is used alone, > > won't probe the driver? That doesn't > > seem very right to me. > > But we shouldn't use it alone: we should always use: > compatible = "marvell,mv78230-i2c", "marvell,mv64xxx-i2c"; > > From my point of view using "marvell,mv78230-i2c" alone is an error.
Why is that? If the I2C controller is a new IP with additional features, it should have a full compatible of its own, doesn't it? -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
