[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfSr2vMwywUxw4FdiDMK+9_J83TsfXmn0EDkL9xuqPG8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 13:57:22 +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>,
Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: at24: consistently document the
compatible property
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> Current description of the compatible property for at24 is quite vague.
>
> State explicitly that any "<manufacturer>,<model>" pair is accepted as
> long as a correct fallback is used for non-atmel chips.
> - "atmel,24c00", "atmel,24c01", "atmel,24c02", "atmel,24c04",
> - "atmel,24c08", "atmel,24c16", "atmel,24c32", "atmel,24c64",
> - "atmel,24c128", "atmel,24c256", "atmel,24c512", "atmel,24c1024"
> + "atmel,24c00",
> + "atmel,24c01",
> + "atmel,24c02",
> + "atmel,spd",
> + "atmel,24c04",
Just to whom it may concern, I still don't like the ordering.
By name is better to read and catch up the (un)supported chips.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists