lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/1] at24: support eeproms that do not auto-rollover reads.
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:14:22AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2017-12-05 8:44 GMT+01:00 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.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.

It's going to wait forever until it is sent to the DT list so
patchwork picks it up and is in my queue.

> @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

at24 is not a vendor.

> 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@linux.intel.com
>
> Thanks,
> Bartosz
>
> [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/842500/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-06 22:29    [W:1.161 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site