Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1657274 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v5 12/20] ARM: dts: uniphier: Add generic compatible string for I2C EEPROM

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v5 12/20] ARM: dts: uniphier: Add generic compatible  string for I2C EEPROM Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> - 2017-06-05 07:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5 12/20] ARM: dts: uniphier: Add generic compatible  string for I2C EEPROM Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2017-06-06 11:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5 12/20] ARM: dts: uniphier: Add generic compatible  string for I2C EEPROM Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> - 2017-06-07 03:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v5 12/20] ARM: dts: uniphier: Add generic compatible  string for I2C EEPROM Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org> - 2017-06-07 14:50 +0200

#1657274 — Re: [PATCH v5 12/20] ARM: dts: uniphier: Add generic compatible string for I2C EEPROM

Hi.

2017-05-23 22:34 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>:
> 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 <javier@dowhile0.org>
>
> ---
>
> 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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1658499

Hello Masahiro,

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> 2017-05-23 22:34 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>:
>> 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 <javier@dowhile0.org>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1659329

Hi Javier,


2017-06-06 18:04 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>:
> Hello Masahiro,
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> 2017-05-23 22:34 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>:
>>> 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 <javier@dowhile0.org>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1659770

Hello Masahiro,

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web