On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > Hi Javier, > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas > <jav...@dowhile0.org> wrote: >> This series is a follow-up to patch [0] that added an OF device ID table >> to the at24 EEPROM driver. As you suggested [1], this version instead of >> adding entries for every used <vendor,device> tuple, only adds a single >> entry for each chip type using the "atmel" vendor as a generic fallback. >> >> This is a re-spin that addresses some issues pointed out by Rob Herring. >> >> The first patch documents in the DT binding what's the correct vendor to >> use and what are the ones that are being deprecated. The second one adds >> the OF device ID table for the at24 driver and the next patches use this >> vendor in the compatible string to each DTS that defines a compatible I2C >> EEPROM device node. >> >> Patches can be applied independently since the DTS changes without driver >> changes are no-op and the OF table won't be used without the DTS changes. >> >> [0]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/14/589 >> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/15/99 >> >> Best regards, >> Javier >> >> Changes in v4: >> - Document the manufacturers that have been deprecated (Rob Herring). >> - Only use the atmel manufacturer in the compatible string instead of >> keeping the deprecated ones (Rob Herring). > > I think you're referring to this (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/19/1136)? > > | > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-baltos.dtsi > | > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-baltos.dtsi > | > @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ > | > }; > | > > | > at24@50 { > | > - compatible = "at24,24c02"; > | > + compatible = "at24,24c02", "atmel,24c02"; > | > | I think you can just drop the at24 compatibles. A new kernel doesn't > | need it. An old kernel ignores the manufacturer. I checked that u-boot > | only matches on "atmel,*", so okay there. Don't know about the *BSDs. I > | couldn't find anything. > > I think you misunderstood what Rob means. > > In the case above it makes sense to drop the first compatible, as "at24" is > not a manufacturer, but refers to ATMEL's "AT24" line of i2c FLASH ROMs. > > However, in cases where a real vendor/part combo is specified, like on > r8a7791-koelsch.dts: > > - compatible = "renesas,24c02"; > + compatible = "atmel,24c02"; > > you do want to keep the real vendor/part combo, i.e. > > compatible = "renesas,24c02", "atmel,24c02";
Yes, Geert is correct. Rob
