2013/1/23 Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:24:52PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > This patch adds at24c512b eeprom support. >> > The datasheet of at24c512b can be found at: >> > http://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/ >> > 256958/ATMEL/AT24C512B-TH-B.html >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Arnd Bergmann is the misc maintainer, route this by him. > > I usually take at24 patches via my I2C tree. > > But not this one, though. The 512b can equally use the 512 entry. The > devicetree should contain both entries, the 512 one as a fallback. (And > the vendor is not "at24"!) There are some difference between 24c512 and 24c512b about the system reset procedure, according to the two devices' spec: 24c512b:(a) Create a start bit condition, (b)clock 9 cycles, (c) create another start bit followed by stop bit condition. 24c512:(a) Clock up to 9 cycles, (b) look for SDA high in each cycle while SCL is high and then, (c) create a start condition as SDA is high. Could this be a reason to add an entry for 24c512b? About the vendor name, I took the at24c32 node in arch/arm/boot/dts/imx28-evk.dts as a reference: at24@51 { compatible = "at24,24c32"; pagesize = <32>; reg = <0x51>; }; Now, I think the correct vendor name should be "at" or "atmel". Thanks. > > Regards, > > Wolfram > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- Best Regards, Liu Ying -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
