Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: at91: add compatible with microchip,sama7g5-i2c

[Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>]

Am 2022-01-05 11:37, schrieb Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com:
> On 1/5/22 12:04 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> Add compatible and data platform struct for sama7g5 SoC.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@microchip.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/i2c/at91_i2c.c | 6 ++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/at91_i2c.c b/drivers/i2c/at91_i2c.c
>>> index 6b4c0e4804..400a3786ca 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/at91_i2c.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/at91_i2c.c
>>> @@ -305,6 +305,11 @@ static const struct at91_i2c_pdata 
>>> sama5d2_config = {
>>>        .clk_offset = 3,
>>>   };
>>> 
>>> +static const struct at91_i2c_pdata sama7g5_config = {
>>> +     .clk_max_div = 7,
>>> +     .clk_offset = 3,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>   static const struct udevice_id at91_i2c_ids[] = {
>>>   { .compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-i2c", .data = 
>>> (long)&at91rm9200_config },
>>>   { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-i2c", .data = 
>>> (long)&at91sam9260_config },
>>> @@ -314,6 +319,7 @@ static const struct udevice_id at91_i2c_ids[] = {
>>>   { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9x5-i2c", .data = 
>>> (long)&at91sam9x5_config },
>>>   { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d4-i2c", .data = (long)&sama5d4_config 
>>> },
>>>   { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-i2c", .data = (long)&sama5d2_config 
>>> },
>>> +{ .compatible = "microchip,sama7g5-i2c", .data = 
>>> (long)&sama7g5_config },
>> 
>> I see that this compatible string is is also used in the linux
>> device tree, but there is no dt binding for it in linux. Could you
>> add it, so the binding is approved by Rob?
> 
> I can, for sure, but the current binding format is txt. I am not sure 
> if
> we have to convert to yaml first, in which case it would be a little
> more difficult than just adding a new compatible string.
> The current DT node in Linux is also compatible with sam9x60, and this
> string is already in the Linux binding file.
> I could add the sam9x60 compatible instead, and it will still work, as
> 9x60 type of i2c is the same as in sama7g5.
> You think this option would be better for now ?

It's at least better than adding an undocumented string. But TBH,
this looks like "what can I do to avoid converting the dt binding
to yaml". Which eventually has to be done anyway, so now might be
a good opportunity for that :)

But looking at sama7g5_config above again, will that also be the
correct values for the generic sam9x60?

-michael