Hi Wolfram,
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + {
>> + .compatible = "atmel,spd",
>> + .data = (void *)AT24_DEVICE_MAGIC(2048 / 8,
>> + AT24_FLAG_READONLY | AT24_FLAG_IRUGO)
>> + },
>
> checkpatch reported this one as un-documented. And come to think of it,
> since this is solely for EEPROMs on RAM modules, I think we can drop a
> DT binding for it. Could you agree? I can do it locally, no need to
> resend. I'll do HW testing later, but wanted to check on your opinion
> already.
Why?
No one has placeholders for memory modules in DT?
In addition, I can imagine a DT overlay for a memory module, adding the
memory node and the EEPROM.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
