Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3a07d0d9fbe7178bbe9efa99fcb331df213a461f.camel@linux.intel.com>
References: <1529994128-26770-1-git-send-email-alanx.chiang@intel.com>
 <CAMRc=Me-Tm8Q5_hGu2r1uqeYFAvCM9ssr7o=w1KZUyXcAn_uCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ff4c668d0807657940a4cddc6f7eb63d19be327c.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=Me511S4Qw_-SPNkpPXcby7rZApbgm9g2=W=irmy9Gsu3g@mail.gmail.com> <3a07d0d9fbe7178bbe9efa99fcb331df213a461f.camel@linux.intel.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:30:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdvW_k3ZgrZAffD45r_zxOMWCyXoDx-YgXMQ2=-tSjyGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Add a property in at24.c
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     alanx.chiang@intel.com, linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        andy.yeh@intel.com, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        Rajmohan Mani <rajmohan.mani@intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2018-06-26 15:23 GMT+02:00 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>:
> On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 14:36 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> 2018-06-26 14:14 GMT+02:00 Andy Shevchenko
>> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>:
>> > On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 09:41 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
>> > > What is your use case exactly? Do you have an EEPROM model that's
>> > > not
>> > > yet supported explicitly in the driver? Why would you need this
>> > > option?
>> >
>> > The current at24 driver has no address width support,
>
>> >  thus, reusing same
>> > (allocated) IDs (non-DT case) is hard.
>
> ^^^^^
>
>> Every supported compatible has the width already specified in its
>> corresponding chip data.
>
>
> Please, read again carefully what I wrote before.
>

Ok makes sense in that case. Could you just point me towards an
example model which has the address width different than the default
for its type?

Bart