From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: I2C eeprom compatibles? (was Re: [PATCH/RFC 03/19] ARM: shmobile: gose: add i2c2 bus to device tree) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20151218103214.GA1532@katana> References: <1449802376-11301-1-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <20151218030239.GB10973@verge.net.au> <20151218073531.GA1517@katana> <1839177.77Qt0RnI3v@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1839177.77Qt0RnI3v@wuerfel> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Simon Horman , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Sergei Shtylyov , Linux-sh list , Magnus Damm , Wolfram Sang , Geert Uytterhoeven List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:06:48AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 18 December 2015 08:35:32 Wolfram Sang wrote: > > >=20 > > > It seems to me that we have some consensus around: > > >=20 > > > compatible =3D "renesas,r1ex24002", "24c02"; > >=20 > > Thinking again, "generic,24c02" or "generic-24c02" could also be an > > option. > >=20 > > > Should this be added to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eepr= om.txt ? > > > Or documented elsewhere? > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > Adding DT to CC. >=20 > I'd rather use some vendor string in addition to 24c02. Isn't this origin= ally > an Atmel part? In that case, using "atmel,24c02" as the most generic stri= ng > would be appropriate, Yeah, the at24 driver is named after Atmel chips AFAIR. Having "atmel,*" as the generic fallback sounds like a good solution to me, too. > and IIRC the i2c framework will just match that with > the "24c02" entry in the i2c_device_id list. True, although this behaviour is often complained about. There have been attempts to make i2c/spi behave like the rest of the DT world and to deprecate the current way. It didn't happen because of lots gory details, however :/ --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWc+CuAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2IVEP/A6WBkDVerA3v8dvbXFGdlkP caFknBFInEvJsXHQK/tILCyPpkTJCTEoMf8eXmDqXG8lt3tZU9qR7w+9nvzT9oXR kvER+hd8//lFksL0NTOKp9E87jIzt2AdIWf2l39U/etmw5RZ9YW+sWH+AbdKG/Gc DHTQQR3079KbZl+m2179FzquVTvoA2M7L+5TrM7e+Odu4w29/FwvMJBGIZQvN43g HUjTszIvzp3aa2hLVWqxBzugRNw+OL6w5eXno55n6mNdfUMXvoItImW6u6jAmBsn uTCrXcH3hSLPZ/idLGdON1URaNOcfyucqOmUsX3AXRyeJSfe9nqPbU5aNlmrGhxY 62+mT4igsi4+JKOrah58GUnpcOkCXRi56woA+INQRGgeFqD4gCYyrzt/PjHbtkcc JX5jN5W5qMzh5gTgoEyEZHjMQFCv8pTSwJiB4ANsMGAdiaNVFpba+QU6AVJ0Bcrj Rf/IT+IwYZZU3glKwJKHAQ/mFiGtoWFVVAg0/gXUfsfQmHI6DBhZLS1bZ/1bGokL P2iyHY9FStBKGo0WS8p03eyjfknlQCaldAl/JfmXq/m6mNYDYZkzK4GPOXCU93RV msg1tf9PNnipW/TYELG29v4RYQwMVfRDMxWeuQckOrAmsaixNj9KibHQM/lziM8N 16/dG1+A10xn5N1PpkGl =bjZC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO--