On 1/5/22 12:49 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
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 :)
You are right. It has to be done anyway, but I would not like to stop the addition to u-boot because of that. Converting the i2c to yaml might open several other issues, and this might delay a simple compatible string in uboot a lot. sam9x60 compatible has to be added anyway, since it's supported and it's already in the binding tree. So I see this like an intermediary step.
But looking at sama7g5_config above again, will that also be the correct values for the generic sam9x60?
That's right. I will follow up with a patch to add sam9x60, and think of converting the i2c binding later on.
-michael