Hi Wolfram, > I meant a generic binding for the host-controller. It could be seen as a > HW description if we need HostNotify on that bus or not. > > Maybe it becomes more clear with the R-Car I2C controller as an example. > It only supports one slave address. If I want HostNotify there, I can't > use another slave backend. Now, it could be that I need the slave EEPROM > backend, although there is a HostNotify capable device on the bus. So, I > am leaning to have a generic "host-notify" binding for the host. > > I consider platform_data legacy. If we use device_property, we should be > safe regarding all current and future HW descriptions, or?
Ok, understood. Fine for me that way as well. I am just a little worrying that the "host-notify" can now be present in both controller AND slave nodes and might be a bit hard to understand. At the same time I don't have a better proposal for naming the binding for the controller. Please do not consider serie v2 I just posted few days ago and I will post a serie v3 updating the binding information and using the host-notify binding in the i2c-stm32f7 driver. Alain