diff mbox series

[10/17] dt-bindings: i2c: microchip: corei2c: Add PIC64GX as compatible with driver

Message ID 20240725121609.13101-11-pierre-henry.moussay@microchip.com
State Changes Requested
Headers show
Series [01/17] dt-bindings: can: mpfs: add PIC64GX CAN compatibility | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
robh/dt-meta-schema success
robh/checkpatch success
robh/patch-applied success
robh/dtbs-check warning build log

Commit Message

pierre-henry.moussay@microchip.com July 25, 2024, 12:16 p.m. UTC
From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@microchip.com>

PIC64GX i2c is compatible with the MPFS driver

Signed-off-by: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@microchip.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

Comments

Conor Dooley July 25, 2024, 2:24 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 01:16:02PM +0100, pierre-henry.moussay@microchip.com wrote:
> From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@microchip.com>
> 
> PIC64GX i2c is compatible with the MPFS driver

Please don't talk about drivers, bindings are for hardware.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@microchip.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml
> index afa3db726229..4ba8a27eb8e5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml
> @@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ properties:
>        - items:
>            - const: microchip,mpfs-i2c # Microchip PolarFire SoC compatible SoCs
>            - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core
> +      - items:
> +          - const: microchip,pic64gx-i2c
> +          - const: microchip,mpfs-i2c # Microchip PolarFire SoC compatible SoCs

Why is an mpfs-i2c fallback required? Can't we just fall back to the
fabric IP?

Cheers,
Conor.

> +          - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core
>        - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core
>  
>    reg:
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml
index afa3db726229..4ba8a27eb8e5 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/microchip,corei2c.yaml
@@ -18,6 +18,10 @@  properties:
       - items:
           - const: microchip,mpfs-i2c # Microchip PolarFire SoC compatible SoCs
           - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core
+      - items:
+          - const: microchip,pic64gx-i2c
+          - const: microchip,mpfs-i2c # Microchip PolarFire SoC compatible SoCs
+          - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core
       - const: microchip,corei2c-rtl-v7 # Microchip Fabric based i2c IP core
 
   reg: