Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] ARM: dts: at91: at91-sama5d27_som1: add sama5d27 SoM1 support | From | m18063 <> | Date | Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:31:04 +0300 |
| |
On 05.07.2017 18:29, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > On 05/07/2017 at 17:23, Ludovic Desroches wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 03:56:11PM +0300, Claudiu Beznea wrote: >>> Add specific DTS file and bindings for sama5d27 SoM1 board. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Cristian Birsan <cristian.birsan@microchip.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d27_som1.dtsi | 178 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 178 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d27_som1.dtsi >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d27_som1.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d27_som1.dtsi >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..c3a1dc8 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d27_som1.dtsi >> >> [...] >> >>> + >>> + i2c0: i2c@f8028000 { >>> + dmas = <0>, <0>; >>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>> + pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c0_default>; >>> + i2c-sda-hold-time-ns = <350>; >>> + status = "disabled"; >>> + >>> + 24aa@50 { >>> + compatible = "24mac602"; >>> + reg = <0x50>; >>> + pagesize = <8>; >>> + start-offset = /bits/ 8 <0xf8>; >> >> Are you sure about the offset? I thought it was 0xfa but maybe I am >> wrong. Indeed, it is 0xfa. I chose 0xf8 because at24 driver will truncate the eeprom size at something that is power of 2 (I don't know the reason behind this, maybe it is something historical, maybe it is something I don't get it for the moment). If I would use 24mac402 (which EEPROM size should be 6 bytes but due to the truncation it will become of 4 bytes) and 0xfa as starting offset I could read only 4 octets. Due to this I chose to use 24mac602 which length is 8 = 2^3 bytes, the reading will start from 0xf8 but the first 2 bytes will not be of interest. Sorry that I forgot to mention this in the cover letter.
> > Moreover, as the binding for this is not yet accepted I would advice to > remove this part for now. It will be easier for synchronization with i2c > eeprom. Yes, I will remove this part form in the 3rd version.
Thanks, Claudiu > > Best regards, >
| |