MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171204214023.ml2ujacezsop5ilb@kekkonen.localdomain>
References: <1512401778-20366-1-git-send-email-svendev@arcx.com>
 <1512401778-20366-2-git-send-email-svendev@arcx.com> <20171204214023.ml2ujacezsop5ilb@kekkonen.localdomain>
From: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:24:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGngYiXR83+0phkeAvJYYEm8HvmN-c9d0B9p1BRiPHyUz1ogAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] at24: support eeproms that do not auto-rollover reads.
To: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@arcx.com>, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, wsa@the-dreams.de,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>, nsekhar@ti.com,
        david@lechnology.com, javier@dowhile0.org, divagar.mohandass@intel.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <svenv@arcx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 662
Lines: 14

> 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.