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

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 01:16:02PM +0100, pierre-henry.moussay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  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
> 
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature