On Thu, 28 May 2020 12:33:12 +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the > i2c "reg" property. If dtc finds an i2c-slave sub-node having an address > higher than ten-bits wide it'll print an ugly warning: > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064" > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064" > > In order to silence dtc up let's replace the corresponding DT binding > example with a normal DW I2C master mode-based one. It's done by clearing > the I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS bit in the reg property and converting the > sub-node to be compatible with normal EEPROM like "atmel,24c02". > > Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed. > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > --- > > Rob, even though you asked for such modification, it might be a better to > just ignore the warning until dtc is properly fixed. Andy and me agree > with that. If you are also on the same side with us, just explicitly nack > this patch so Jarkko or Wolfram would ignore it when merging in the series. > > Changelog v3: > - This is a new patch created as a result of the Rob request to remove > the EEPROM-slave bit setting in the DT binndings example until the dtc > is fixed. > > Changelog v6: > - Replace the "linux,slave-24c02" compatible string with "atmel,24c02" one > so the example would be perceived as a normal DW I2C master mode. > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
