The preferred form for Renesas' compatible strings is:
"<vendor>,<family>-<module>"
Somehow the compatible string for the r9a09g011 I2C IP was upstreamed
as renesas,i2c-r9a09g011 instead of renesas,r9a09g011-i2c, which
is really confusing, especially considering the generic fallback
is renesas,rzv2m-i2c.
The first user of renesas,i2c-r9a09g011 in the kernel is not yet in
a kernel release, it will be in v6.1, therefore it can still be
fixed in v6.1.
Even if we don't fix it before v6.2, I don't think there is any
harm in making such a change.
s/renesas,i2c-r9a09g011/renesas,r9a09g011-i2c/g for consistency.
Fixes: ba7a4d15e2c4 ("dt-bindings: i2c: Document RZ/V2M I2C controller")
Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
---
v2 - Improved changelog, as suggested by Geert and Krzysztof
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,rzv2m.yaml | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,rzv2m.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,rzv2m.yaml
index c46378efc123..92e899905ef8 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,rzv2m.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,rzv2m.yaml
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ properties:
compatible:
items:
- enum:
- - renesas,i2c-r9a09g011 # RZ/V2M
+ - renesas,r9a09g011-i2c # RZ/V2M
- const: renesas,rzv2m-i2c
reg:
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ examples:
#include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
i2c0: i2c@a4030000 {
- compatible = "renesas,i2c-r9a09g011", "renesas,rzv2m-i2c";
+ compatible = "renesas,r9a09g011-i2c", "renesas,rzv2m-i2c";
reg = <0xa4030000 0x80>;
interrupts = <GIC_SPI 232 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
<GIC_SPI 236 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
--
2.34.1
On 07/11/2022 17:50, Fabrizio Castro wrote:
> The preferred form for Renesas' compatible strings is:
> "<vendor>,<family>-<module>"
>
> Somehow the compatible string for the r9a09g011 I2C IP was upstreamed
> as renesas,i2c-r9a09g011 instead of renesas,r9a09g011-i2c, which
> is really confusing, especially considering the generic fallback
> is renesas,rzv2m-i2c.
>
> The first user of renesas,i2c-r9a09g011 in the kernel is not yet in
> a kernel release, it will be in v6.1, therefore it can still be
> fixed in v6.1.
> Even if we don't fix it before v6.2, I don't think there is any
> harm in making such a change.
>
> s/renesas,i2c-r9a09g011/renesas,r9a09g011-i2c/g for consistency.
>
> Fixes: ba7a4d15e2c4 ("dt-bindings: i2c: Document RZ/V2M I2C controller")
> Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Dear All,
This patch has been reviewed by both Geert Uytterhoeven and Krzysztof
Kozlowski. The corresponding device tree patch has already been
taken, I was hoping this patch could be applied to v6.3?
Thanks,
Fab
>
> On 07/11/2022 17:50, Fabrizio Castro wrote:
> > The preferred form for Renesas' compatible strings is:
> > "<vendor>,<family>-<module>"
> >
> > Somehow the compatible string for the r9a09g011 I2C IP was upstreamed
> > as renesas,i2c-r9a09g011 instead of renesas,r9a09g011-i2c, which
> > is really confusing, especially considering the generic fallback
> > is renesas,rzv2m-i2c.
> >
> > The first user of renesas,i2c-r9a09g011 in the kernel is not yet in
> > a kernel release, it will be in v6.1, therefore it can still be
> > fixed in v6.1.
> > Even if we don't fix it before v6.2, I don't think there is any
> > harm in making such a change.
> >
> > s/renesas,i2c-r9a09g011/renesas,r9a09g011-i2c/g for consistency.
> >
> > Fixes: ba7a4d15e2c4 ("dt-bindings: i2c: Document RZ/V2M I2C controller")
> > Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> This patch has been reviewed by both Geert Uytterhoeven and Krzysztof
> Kozlowski. The corresponding device tree patch has already been
> taken, I was hoping this patch could be applied to v6.3?
linux-i2c was not on CC, so the patch was not in I2C patchwork. Thus, it
was not on my list.
Hi Wolfram,
Thanks for your reply.
>
>
> > This patch has been reviewed by both Geert Uytterhoeven and
> Krzysztof
> > Kozlowski. The corresponding device tree patch has already been
> > taken, I was hoping this patch could be applied to v6.3?
>
> linux-i2c was not on CC, so the patch was not in I2C patchwork. Thus,
> it
> was not on my list.
Apologies for that, I'll resend it with linux-i2c in copy this time.
Thanks,
Fab