On 07/20/2015 10:10 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+
+ eeprom@42 {
+ compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
+ //FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42
+ reg = <0xc0000042>;
The node name doesn't match the reg property anymore. Isn't that considered as
a problem ?
Hmm, true. So far, Rob (CCed) was fine with this approach:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-tegra/msg22760.html
@Rob: If we introduce flag bits in the MSBs of an I2C address, the reg
property is different from the node name. Is this a problem?
No, I don't it is a problem.
The rule so far has been that the unit address (the value in the node
name) must match the first value in the reg property. I don't see why
this rule should change. To solve this, just name the node
eeprom@c0000042 (or eeprom@40000042 with the correction pointed out
earlier in the thread).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
