Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] i2c: add support for filters

[Peter Rosin]

On 2019-10-21 16:05, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 07:53:21AM +0000, Eugen.Hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11.09.2019 11:24, Eugen Hristev - M18282 wrote:
>>> From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This series adds support for analog and digital filters for i2c controllers
>>>
>>> This series is based on the series:
>>> [PATCH v2 0/9] i2c: at91: filters support for at91 SoCs
>>> and later
>>> [PATCH v4 0/9] i2c: add support for filters
>>> and enhanced to add the bindings for all controllers plus an extra bindings
>>> for the width of the spikes in nanoseconds (digital filters) and cut-off
>>> frequency (analog filters)
>>>
>>> First, bindings are created for
>>> 'i2c-analog-filter'
>>> 'i2c-digital-filter'
>>> 'i2c-digital-filter-width-ns'
>>> 'i2c-analog-filter-cutoff-frequency'
>>>
>>> The support is added in the i2c core to retrieve filter width/cutoff frequency
>>> and add it to the timings structure.
>>> Next, the at91 driver is enhanced for supporting digital filter, advanced
>>> digital filter (with selectable spike width) and the analog filter.
>>>
>>> Finally the device tree for two boards are modified to make use of the
>>> new properties.
>>>
>>> This series is the result of the comments on the ML in the direction
>>> requested: to make the bindings globally available for i2c drivers.
>>>
>>> Changes in v5:
>>> - renamed i2c-filter-width-ns to i2c-digital-filter-width-ns as this
>>> is applicable only to digital filter
>>> - created new binding i2c-digital-filter-width-ns for analog filters.
>>
>> Hello Wolfram and Peter,
>>
>> Are you happy with the changes in this version? I haven't heard from you 
>> since this latest update.
>> I am interested to know if anymore changes are required or maybe we can 
>> move further with this support.
> 
> So, I had a look now and I am happy. I will give Peter one more day to
> comment, otherwise I'll apply it tomorrow.

I had another read-through and only found one nit which is in a separate
message. You can add

Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>

for the whole series.

Cheers,
Peter

> Thanks for your patience and keeping at it!
>