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

[Eugen.Hristev]

On 21.10.2019 18:23, Peter Rosin wrote:

> 
> 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.

Hello Peter and Wolfram,

Thanks for reviewing.
Send another version of the patch with the nit ?
Or how would you like to proceed ?

Thanks,
Eugen

> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
>> Thanks for your patience and keeping at it!
>>
> 
> 
>