On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:24:33PM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote: > > If this is truly specific to at24, then vendor prefix would be appropriate, > > plus it'd go to an at24 specific binding file. However if it isn't I'd just > > remove the above sentence. I guess the latter? > > Yes, no-read-rollover is truly specific to at24.c, because it applies only > to i2c multi-address chips. The at25 is spi based so cannot have multiple > addresses. > > So yes, "at24,no-read-rollover" would perhaps be a better name. > > Regarding an at24 specific binding file. You're saying I should create > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at24.txt ? Should I indicate > that at24.txt "inherits from" eeprom.txt? Note that at25.txt does not > currently do this. Hmm. I actually missed we didn't have one to begin with. at25.txt exists and it documents a number of properties specific to at25, so if at24 will have an at24-specific property, then I think it should go to a separate file. Aren't there really other chips which need this? It'd be (a little bit) easier to just remove the sentence. :-) -- Regards, Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
