[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVo8_jV0RmWSS=MhF07hwFH68W6vMtj3Uts3NmNHbiqoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:39:39 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table
Hi Wolfram,
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> 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@...ux-m68k.org
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists