Re: [PATCH v8 6/8] dt-bindings: i2c: rk3x: add support for rk3399

[David.Wu]

Hi Doug,

å 2016/5/12 0:35, Doug Anderson åé:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:30 PM, David Wu <david.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The bus clock and function clock are separated at rk3399,
> > and others use one clock as the bus clock and function clock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Wu <david.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Change in v8:
> > - remove error description.
> >
> >   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rk3x.txt | 16 +++++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rk3x.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rk3x.txt
> > index 0b4a85f..5429301 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rk3x.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-rk3x.txt
> > @@ -6,10 +6,20 @@ RK3xxx SoCs.
> >   Required properties :
> >
> >    - reg : Offset and length of the register set for the device
> > - - compatible : should be "rockchip,rk3066-i2c", "rockchip,rk3188-i2c",
> > -               "rockchip,rk3228-i2c" or "rockchip,rk3288-i2c".
> > + - compatible: should be one of the following:
> > +   - "rockchip,rk3066-i2c": for rk3066
> > +   - "rockchip,rk3188-i2c": for rk3188
> > +   - "rockchip,rk3228-i2c": for rk3228
> > +   - "rockchip,rk3288-i2c": for rk3288
> > +   - "rockchip,rk3399-i2c": for rk3399
> >    - interrupts : interrupt number
> > - - clocks : parent clock
> > + - clocks: See ../clock/clock-bindings.txt
> > +   - For older hardware (rk3066, rk3188, rk3228, rk3288):
> > +     - There is one clock that's used both to derive the functional clock
> > +       for the device and as the bus clock.
> > +   - For newer hardware (rk3399): specified by name
> > +     - "i2c": REQUIRED. This is used to derive the functional clock.
> > +     - "pclk": REQUIRED. This is the bus clock.
>
> Depending on what Rob thinks, it might make sense to remove the above
> two "REQUIRED" bits.  That would match his earlier feedback since
> we're still in the "Required" section and thus it is redundant.

Okay, i make a little misunderstand for that, so i will fix it in next 
version.

> -Doug