On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Andrey Smirnov
<andrew.smir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 06:59:47PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
>>> Add Device Tree bindings for RAVE SP EEPROM driver - an MFD cell of
>>> parent RAVE SP driver (documented in
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/zii,rave-sp.txt).
>>>
>>> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandaga...@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: Chris Healy <cphe...@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Lucas Stach <l.st...@pengutronix.de>
>>> Cc: Aleksander Morgado <aleksan...@aleksander.es>
>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh...@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>
>>> Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smir...@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../bindings/nvmem/zii,rave-sp-eeprom.txt | 29
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/zii,rave-sp-eeprom.txt
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/zii,rave-sp-eeprom.txt
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/zii,rave-sp-eeprom.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..a4e838c30b67
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/zii,rave-sp-eeprom.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
>>> +Zodiac Inflight Innovations RAVE EEPROM Bindings
>>> +
>>> +RAVE SP EEPROM device is a "MFD cell" device exposing physical EEPROM
>>> +attached to RAVE Supervisory Processor. It is expected that its Device
>>> +Tree node is specified as a child of the node corresponding to the
>>> +parent RAVE SP device (as documented in
>>> +Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/zii,rave-sp.txt)
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +
>>> +- compatible: Should be "zii,rave-sp-eeprom"
>>
>> Need to state somewhere this follows the bindings/nvmem/nvmem.txt
>> binding.
>>
>
> OK, will fix in v3.
>
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> + rave-sp {
>>> + compatible = "zii,rave-sp-rdu1";
>>> + current-speed = <38400>;
>>> +
>>> + main-eeprom {
>>
>> eeprom@a4
>
> Any chance I can keep it as is? I am asking because this node name is
> used by the driver as device name which is how it also appears in
> sysfs. Reason for that being that "main-eeprom" and "dds-eeprom"
> (second EEPROM in the system) are easier to rembmer and tell apart
> than "eeprom@a4" and "eeprom@a5". Granted, I can divorce naming scheme
> in the driver from device node name, but then I'd have to keep a
> "address -> deivce name" lookup table which I was hoping to avoid.
It generates a dtc warning if you don't fix it.
Rob
