[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Veg5h7v611PiLCOP6n4Ofhm-0+YY651tT_NZoJ-1aSMwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:25:21 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>,
David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
Divagar Mohandass <divagar.mohandass@...el.com>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] dt-bindings: at24: add a missing compatible
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> 2017-12-21 15:08 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
>> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>>> "atmel,spd" is reported by checkpatch as undocumented in the device
>>> tree bindings. Add it to the list of supported compatible strings.
>>
>>> "atmel,24c00",
>>> "atmel,24c01",
>>> "atmel,24c02",
>>> + "atmel,spd",
>>> "atmel,24c04",
>>> "atmel,24c08",
>>> "atmel,24c16",
>>
>> Sounds alogical to me to make a split by this new record.
>> Can you find better line to inject?
> They are actually ordered by memory size. I want to keep it like this
> in the driver and I prefer that the DT reflect it.
So, I just disagree on the above. Rationale I described at one of the comment.
At the end it's your call, but from my p.o.v. it makes life harder to
read and catch the chips which are (un)supported.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists