On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> + {
>> + .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
As mentioned by Rob, it's already used by a DTS in mainline.
I think the problem is in how the DT binding for this driver is described.
Most DT bindings describes the complete list of compatible strings
supported by a driver and that's what checkpatch expects. But
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt describes it as
the cartesian product of the atmel (and also the deprecated at and
at24) manufacturer and a list of devices. To save you a lookup:
If there is no specific driver for <manufacturer>, a generic
device with <type> and manufacturer "atmel" should be used.
Possible types are:
"24c00", "24c01", "24c02", "24c04", "24c08", "24c16", "24c32", "24c64",
"24c128", "24c256", "24c512", "24c1024", "spd"
> resend. I'll do HW testing later, but wanted to check on your opinion
> already.
>
Great, thanks! I hope I got it right this time. Adding a DTS snippet I
can see that the entry .data is correctly used but I don't a device to
check if is working correctly after $SUBJECT.
> Thanks,
>
> Wolfram
>
