> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 4:13 PM
> To: David Airlie <[email protected]>; Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>;
> Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]>; Maxime Ripard
> <[email protected]>; Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]>;
> Rob Herring <[email protected]>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <[email protected]>; Conor Dooley
> <[email protected]>; Alim Akhtar <[email protected]>; Andi
> Shyti <[email protected]>; Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>; Lars-
> Peter Clausen <[email protected]>; Lee Jones <[email protected]>; Ulf
> Hansson <[email protected]>; Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>;
> Sylwester Nawrocki <[email protected]>; Linus Walleij
> <[email protected]>; Thierry Reding <[email protected]>; Uwe
> Kleine-König <[email protected]>; Alessandro Zummo
> <[email protected]>; Alexandre Belloni
> <[email protected]>; Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <[email protected]>; Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>; Liam
> Girdwood <[email protected]>; Mark Brown <[email protected]>;
> Jaehoon Chung <[email protected]>; Sam Protsenko
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-arm-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; alsa-devel@alsa-
> project.org; [email protected]
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Subject: [PATCH 02/17] dt-bindings: i2c: exynos5: add specific compatibles for
> existing SoC
>
> Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus
> historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and
> there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that:
> 1. Compatibles should be specific.
> 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features.
>
> Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> I propose to take the patch through Samsung SoC (me). See cover letter for
> explanation.
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml | 10 +++++++++-
> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml
> index 3e52a0db6c41..c1f5d2cb7709 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.yaml
> @@ -25,7 +25,15 @@ properties:
> - samsung,exynos5250-hsi2c # Exynos5250 and Exynos5420
> - samsung,exynos5260-hsi2c # Exynos5260
> - samsung,exynos7-hsi2c # Exynos7
> - - samsung,exynosautov9-hsi2c # ExynosAutoV9 and Exynos850
> + - samsung,exynosautov9-hsi2c
> + - items:
> + - enum:
> + - samsung,exynos5433-hsi2c
> + - const: samsung,exynos7-hsi2c
> + - items:
> + - enum:
> + - samsung,exynos850-hsi2c
Does this need an entry in allOf:? to indicate exynos850 also has 2 clocks?
> + - const: samsung,exynosautov9-hsi2c
> - const: samsung,exynos5-hsi2c # Exynos5250 and Exynos5420
> deprecated: true
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-
> usi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-
> usi.yaml
> index a6836904a4f8..5b7ab69546c4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml
> @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ examples:
> };
>
> hsi2c_0: i2c@13820000 {
> - compatible = "samsung,exynosautov9-hsi2c";
> + compatible = "samsung,exynos850-hsi2c",
> + "samsung,exynosautov9-hsi2c";
> reg = <0x13820000 0xc0>;
> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 227 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> #address-cells = <1>;
> --
> 2.34.1
