Hi.
2017-05-23 22:34 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>:
> The at24 driver allows to register I2C EEPROM chips using different vendor
> and devices, but the I2C subsystem does not take the vendor into account
> when matching using the I2C table since it only has device entries.
>
> But when matching using an OF table, both the vendor and device has to be
> taken into account so the driver defines only a set of compatible strings
> using the "atmel" vendor as a generic fallback for compatible I2C devices.
>
> So add this generic fallback to the device node compatible string to make
> the device to match the driver using the OF device ID table.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v5:
> - Only replace atmel variant but keep other EEPROM vendors (Geert Uytterhoeven).
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Only use the atmel manufacturer in the compatible string instead of
> keeping the deprecated ones (Rob Herring).
>
> Changes in v3: None
> Changes in v2: None
>
> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pro4-ace.dts | 2 +-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pro4-sanji.dts | 2 +-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pxs2-gentil.dts | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Why didn't you touch
arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-ref-daughter.dtsi ?
BTW, has the driver change merged?
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Hello Masahiro,
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> 2017-05-23 22:34 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>:
>> The at24 driver allows to register I2C EEPROM chips using different vendor
>> and devices, but the I2C subsystem does not take the vendor into account
>> when matching using the I2C table since it only has device entries.
>>
>> But when matching using an OF table, both the vendor and device has to be
>> taken into account so the driver defines only a set of compatible strings
>> using the "atmel" vendor as a generic fallback for compatible I2C devices.
>>
>> So add this generic fallback to the device node compatible string to make
>> the device to match the driver using the OF device ID table.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v5:
>> - Only replace atmel variant but keep other EEPROM vendors (Geert Uytterhoeven).
>>
>> Changes in v4:
>> - Only use the atmel manufacturer in the compatible string instead of
>> keeping the deprecated ones (Rob Herring).
>>
>> Changes in v3: None
>> Changes in v2: None
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pro4-ace.dts | 2 +-
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pro4-sanji.dts | 2 +-
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pxs2-gentil.dts | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>
> Why didn't you touch
> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-ref-daughter.dtsi ?
>
Because the compatible string "microchip,24lc128" used by the I2C
EEPROM node on that DTS is not supported by the
drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c driver (in fact the only occurrence for
24lc128 I see is in that DTS).
Maybe is a typo and it should be "microchip,24c128" instead ? In any
case, I think this should be fixed as a separate patch and is out of
scope for this series.
>
>
> BTW, has the driver change merged?
>
No, it hasn't been merged yet but there's no strict order in which the
changes should be picked so the DTS patches can be applied
independently. I haven't had feedback from Wolfram yet, but he was the
one who suggested this and so I guess he will be Ok with the driver
changes.
>
>
> --
> Best Regards
> Masahiro Yamada
Best regards,
Javier
Hi Javier,
2017-06-06 18:04 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>:
> Hello Masahiro,
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> 2017-05-23 22:34 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>:
>>> The at24 driver allows to register I2C EEPROM chips using different vendor
>>> and devices, but the I2C subsystem does not take the vendor into account
>>> when matching using the I2C table since it only has device entries.
>>>
>>> But when matching using an OF table, both the vendor and device has to be
>>> taken into account so the driver defines only a set of compatible strings
>>> using the "atmel" vendor as a generic fallback for compatible I2C devices.
>>>
>>> So add this generic fallback to the device node compatible string to make
>>> the device to match the driver using the OF device ID table.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v5:
>>> - Only replace atmel variant but keep other EEPROM vendors (Geert Uytterhoeven).
>>>
>>> Changes in v4:
>>> - Only use the atmel manufacturer in the compatible string instead of
>>> keeping the deprecated ones (Rob Herring).
>>>
>>> Changes in v3: None
>>> Changes in v2: None
>>>
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pro4-ace.dts | 2 +-
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pro4-sanji.dts | 2 +-
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pxs2-gentil.dts | 2 +-
>>> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Why didn't you touch
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-ref-daughter.dtsi ?
>>
>
> Because the compatible string "microchip,24lc128" used by the I2C
> EEPROM node on that DTS is not supported by the
> drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c driver (in fact the only occurrence for
> 24lc128 I see is in that DTS).
>
> Maybe is a typo and it should be "microchip,24c128" instead ?
I do not think so.
I consulted a board developer.
I also see 24LC128 on Microchip web site:
http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/24LC128
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Hello Masahiro,
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> Why didn't you touch
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-ref-daughter.dtsi ?
>>>
>>
>> Because the compatible string "microchip,24lc128" used by the I2C
>> EEPROM node on that DTS is not supported by the
>> drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c driver (in fact the only occurrence for
>> 24lc128 I see is in that DTS).
>>
>> Maybe is a typo and it should be "microchip,24c128" instead ?
>
> I do not think so.
> I consulted a board developer.
>
> I also see 24LC128 on Microchip web site:
> http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/24LC128
>
Ah Ok, it was just a wild guess I did since the at24 driver didn't
have support for this chip variant.
My point stands though, this is an unrelated change to the goal of
this patch-series and should be fixed separately.
Best regards,
Javier
2017-06-07 21:42 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>:
> Hello Masahiro,
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't you touch
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-ref-daughter.dtsi ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because the compatible string "microchip,24lc128" used by the I2C
>>> EEPROM node on that DTS is not supported by the
>>> drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c driver (in fact the only occurrence for
>>> 24lc128 I see is in that DTS).
>>>
>>> Maybe is a typo and it should be "microchip,24c128" instead ?
>>
>> I do not think so.
>> I consulted a board developer.
>>
>> I also see 24LC128 on Microchip web site:
>> http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/24LC128
>>
>
> Ah Ok, it was just a wild guess I did since the at24 driver didn't
> have support for this chip variant.
> My point stands though, this is an unrelated change to the goal of
> this patch-series and should be fixed separately.
>
> Best regards,
> Javier
Applied to linux-uniphier. Thanks!
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada