On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:14:22AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2017-12-05 8:44 GMT+01:00 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:24:33PM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote: > >> > If this is truly specific to at24, then vendor prefix would be appropriate, > >> > plus it'd go to an at24 specific binding file. However if it isn't I'd just > >> > remove the above sentence. I guess the latter? > >> > >> Yes, no-read-rollover is truly specific to at24.c, because it applies only > >> to i2c multi-address chips. The at25 is spi based so cannot have multiple > >> addresses. > >> > >> So yes, "at24,no-read-rollover" would perhaps be a better name. > >> > >> Regarding an at24 specific binding file. You're saying I should create > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at24.txt ? Should I indicate > >> that at24.txt "inherits from" eeprom.txt? Note that at25.txt does not > >> currently do this. > > > > Hmm. I actually missed we didn't have one to begin with. at25.txt exists > > and it documents a number of properties specific to at25, so if at24 will > > have an at24-specific property, then I think it should go to a separate > > file. > > The eeprom.txt file in the bindings directory actually describes the > bindings for at24. There's a patch[1] from Wolfram waiting for Rob's > ack that renames it to at24.txt. I hope that clears any confusion. It's going to wait forever until it is sent to the DT list so patchwork picks it up and is in my queue. > @Sven: please split the patch into two: one for bindings and one for code. > > As for the name: I would change it to at24,no-read-rollover and remove at24 is not a vendor. > the fragment saying it's only supported in at24 - as I said: this file > only concerns at24 and will be renamed. > > > > > Aren't there really other chips which need this? It'd be (a little bit) > > easier to just remove the sentence. :-) > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Sakari Ailus > > sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Thanks, > Bartosz > > [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/842500/
