[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdeEcJ=hH42725S3u3ncVeNdyk-VBs2TvV1D8_kTR3nOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:14:22 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>,
Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, nsekhar@...com,
David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>, javier@...hile0.org,
divagar.mohandass@...el.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Sven Van Asbroeck <svenv@...x.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] at24: support eeproms that do not auto-rollover reads.
2017-12-05 8:44 GMT+01:00 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>:
> 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.
@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
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@...ux.intel.com
Thanks,
Bartosz
[1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/842500/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists