Hi Mika,
On Fri Oct 23 11:20, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> You should either use proper _HID/_CID for the device or put "PRP0001"
> to the _HID and let the match happen with DT .compatible strings. I've
> attached a hack that I use locally.
I have a similar hack over here. I have a question though:
> The corresponding ASL fragment would look like:
>
>
> Device (AT24)
> {
> Name (_HID, "PRP0001")
>
> Method (_CRS, 0, Serialized) {
> Name (UBUF, ResourceTemplate () {
> I2cSerialBus (0x50, ControllerInitiated, 0x00061A80,
> AddressingMode7Bit, "\\_SB.I2C6",
> 0x00, ResourceConsumer)
> })
> Return (UBUF)
> }
>
> Name (_DSD, Package () {
> ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"),
> Package () {
> Package () {"compatible", "atmel,24c02"},
The "c02" in 24c02 also indicates the size. I've always found it a
little awkward when you could have a compatible string that disagrees
with firmware properties. Should we do something about that?
For example, is the more generic string, "atmel,at24" better? I'm not
sure I like that approach in general, but it works well for the at24
devices. at25 does it the same way.
> Package () {"size", 256},
> Package () {"pagesize", 32},
> Package () {"abs-value", 1},
> },
> })
>
> Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized)
> {
> Return (0xF)
> }
> }
--Dustin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
