From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:35:32 +0100 Subject: I2C eeprom compatibles? (was Re: [PATCH/RFC 03/19] ARM: shmobile: gose: add i2c2 bus to device tree) In-Reply-To: <20151218030239.GB10973@verge.net.au> References: <1449802376-11301-1-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <1449802376-11301-4-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <566AB2A5.4090105@cogentembedded.com> <20151214021110.GD13945@verge.net.au> <20151214071103.GC1516@katana> <20151218030239.GB10973@verge.net.au> Message-ID: <20151218073531.GA1517@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:02:39PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:39:47AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > >> > >+ eeprom at 50 { > > >> > >+ compatible = "renesas,24c02"; > > >> > > > >> > This is not a valid value -- the Renesas chip model is different from 24c02. > > >> > > >> I copied this value from r8a7791.dtsi. > > >> > > >> Looking at the schematic for gose (v100), koelsch (rev024) and porter (v300) > > >> I see the following "R1EX24002ATAS0G#U0". Shall we update r8a7791 and > > >> this patch to "renesas,24002" or leave things as is? > > > > > > I wouldn't like to update the at24 driver with all namings from all > > > vendors for chips which in large cases are simple 24c02 devices. > > > > > > So, if Sergei insists on the change, I'd propose > > > > > > compatible = "renesas,24002", "24c02"; > > > > "renesas,r1ex24002"? > > > > I don't think the "A" is relevant (<= 64 is A, >= 128 is B). > > > > http://www.renesas.com/products/memory/eeprom/product_selector.jsp > > Thanks. > > It seems to me that we have some consensus around: > > compatible = "renesas,r1ex24002", "24c02"; Thinking again, "generic,24c02" or "generic-24c02" could also be an option. > Should this be added to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt ? > Or documented elsewhere? Probably we need a DT maintainers advice here? I don't mind vendor specific compatibles being documented, but I'm reluctant to add all these compatibles for the myriads of I2C eeproms to the at24 driver. 99% are covered by the generic case. Adding DT to CC. Thanks, Wolfram -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: