Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embeddedtree

From: Lee Jones
Date: Wed Jul 18 2012 - 07:24:15 EST

On 18/07/12 12:12, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:35:21AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

Fix your mailer to word wrap within paragraphs. I've reformatted your
mail for legibility.

Does it always do that, or was it just this time? It's setup to word-wrap, for instance this paragraph should. I have an add-on, which disables wrapping, but I only enable that when I send individual patches out. I know it used to work, but I have a feeling it's broken.

I agree, but in this instance it really does stand to reason.

1. No unified bindings currently exist.
2. I don't have time to create them.
3. It will probably take quite a bit of time for someone else to get
round to creating them.
4. The bindings I'm proposing are siloed by vendor and driver, so will
cause no harm.

Right, this is just a restatement of the standard vendor line.

If the issue is purely about having generic bindings quite frankly it's
very hard to see how it could take much time or effort to handle the
generic bits for I2C, it's basically just the maximum bus frequency and

The frequency is already a generic binding, it's the others which need alignment.

possibly also the various fast modes (though to a good approximation it
seems reasonable to just infer them from the bus frequency and then see
if we need any more). One thing I frequently find is that people say
any sort of generic work is hard without explaining why, if there are
complex issues that's one thing but that's often not the case.

I didn't say it was hard, I was it was time consuming. It would require looking at all of the other drivers and picking out bits which are the same. An i2c guy would be better to do it. I didn't even know what the nmk-i2c ones were (slsu, tft, rft, sm) until I was told my the author. I fear the other drivers will be just as cryptic.

BTW, looking at the platform data again it seems like i2c_freq_mode it
seems very odd that it's driver specific?

I agree.

5. I've already volunteered to move them over to the unified ones once
6. These allow support for the driver to work with DT, at the moment
it does not.

Personally, I think there is more to be gained by applying the
(working) vendor specific bindings to the vendor specific driver until
some more consolidated ones appear.

Again, vendors always make great promises about how they're going to
keep everything up to date...

I'm not a vendor. I also keep my promises. :)

Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
M: +44 77 88 633 515 â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at