Message ID | 20240711115207.2843133-8-claudiu.beznea.uj@bp.renesas.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Delegated to: | Geert Uytterhoeven |
Headers | show |
Series | i2c: riic: Add support for Renesas RZ/G3S | expand |
> + - const: renesas,riic-r9a08g045 # RZ/G3S > + - const: renesas,riic-r9a09g057 Why no comment after the latter one?
On 08.08.2024 18:21, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> + - const: renesas,riic-r9a08g045 # RZ/G3S >> + - const: renesas,riic-r9a09g057 > > Why no comment after the latter one? > I kept it like this to avoid confusion b/w RZ/G3S and RZ/V2H(P) documented below, as the RZ/G3S falls back to renesas,riic-r9a09g057 (RZ/V2H(P)). I can add a comment here, too, if you still consider necessary. Please let me know. Thank you, Claudiu Beznea
> I kept it like this to avoid confusion b/w RZ/G3S and RZ/V2H(P) documented > below, as the RZ/G3S falls back to renesas,riic-r9a09g057 (RZ/V2H(P)). > > I can add a comment here, too, if you still consider necessary. Please let > me know. I see. I don't know how such fallbacks are documented usually, so I won't consider it necessary. I was just wondering about it. Let's just be consistent with previous fallbacks, however they were handled.
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml index 7993fe463c4c..e520f06f2c39 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml @@ -25,6 +25,10 @@ properties: - renesas,riic-r9a07g054 # RZ/V2L - const: renesas,riic-rz # RZ/A or RZ/G2L + - items: + - const: renesas,riic-r9a08g045 # RZ/G3S + - const: renesas,riic-r9a09g057 + - const: renesas,riic-r9a09g057 # RZ/V2H(P) reg: