On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:06:48AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 18 December 2015 08:35:32 Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > I'd rather use some vendor string in addition to 24c02. Isn't this originally > an Atmel part? In that case, using "atmel,24c02" as the most generic string > 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 :/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
