On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:50:32 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]> wrote: > For now on use i2c-gpio driver on the same pin as the hardware IP. > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]> > Cc: Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > --- > v3: > > update i2c binding (Rob comments) > > Best Regards, > J. > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi > index 4b0dc99..072b2da 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi > @@ -189,4 +189,17 @@ > status = "disabled"; > }; > }; > + > + i2c-gpio@0 {
i2c@0 > + compatible = "i2c-gpio"; > + gpios = <&pioA 23 0 /* sda */ > + &pioA 24 0 /* scl */ > + >; > + i2c-gpio,sda-open-drain; > + i2c-gpio,scl-open-drain; > + i2c-gpio,delay-us = <2>; /* ~100 kHz */ > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + status = "disabled"; > + }; gpio-driven i2c busses are inherently board-specific. Why is this in the SoC include file? Otherwise I think this patch series looks okay. g. > }; > -- > 1.7.7 > > _______________________________________________ > devicetree-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss -- Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies,Ltd. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
