Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752428AbdLFV3J (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:29:09 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]:34868 "EHLO mail-oi0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752336AbdLFV3G (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:29:06 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZF3U2EbJYYsroOyWg/gkkhY8noIfuwydS/3GiqlHpuXhsrXaerMjhjxkys4A/F+BKQTq5FbQ== Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:29:04 -0600 From: Rob Herring To: Bartosz Golaszewski Cc: Sakari Ailus , Sven Van Asbroeck , Sven Van Asbroeck , Mark Rutland , Wolfram Sang , nsekhar@ti.com, David Lechner , javier@dowhile0.org, divagar.mohandass@intel.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c , Sven Van Asbroeck Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] at24: support eeproms that do not auto-rollover reads. Message-ID: <20171206212904.v5qvhw2ymttk6zxe@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1512401778-20366-1-git-send-email-svendev@arcx.com> <1512401778-20366-2-git-send-email-svendev@arcx.com> <20171204214023.ml2ujacezsop5ilb@kekkonen.localdomain> <20171205074451.gpsidrxlwyfo2fu7@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2079 Lines: 53 On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:14:22AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2017-12-05 8:44 GMT+01:00 Sakari Ailus : > > 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/