> >>@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). We can do that; that would mean that people need to find out the values of the #define which will be used in the reg property. It works, but will be cumbersome IMO.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
