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 <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> > >+ eeprom@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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
