Re: [PATCH 1/3] misc: at24: parse OF-data, too

2010-12-24 Thread Grant Likely
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:00:48PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Information about the pagesize and read-only-status may also come from > the devicetree. Parse this data, too, and act accordingly. While we are > here, change the initialization printout a bit. write_max is useful to > know to detect

Re: [PATCH 1/3] misc: at24: parse OF-data, too

2010-11-22 Thread Stijn Devriendt
Hi Wolfram, I seem to be mistaken. I retried "compatible=" and it did all the right things. I was mistaken that request_module() only takes the driver name, at24 in this case, and not all device names in the table_ids. This pretty much makes my patch redundant. Thanks for helping me clear things

Re: [PATCH 1/3] misc: at24: parse OF-data, too

2010-11-20 Thread Stijn Devriendt
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi, > >> As far as I could tell, using compatible = <24c64>; didn't load the right >> module (module name is at24) and using at24 caused a device id mismatch >> because at24 is not a known device ID. I could be wrong here and if so, I'd >> ver

Re: [PATCH 1/3] misc: at24: parse OF-data, too

2010-11-20 Thread Wolfram Sang
Hi, > As far as I could tell, using compatible = <24c64>; didn't load the right > module (module name is at24) and using at24 caused a device id mismatch > because at24 is not a known device ID. I could be wrong here and if so, I'd > very much like a source code hint as to why... Have you tried

Re: [PATCH 1/3] misc: at24: parse OF-data, too

2010-11-20 Thread Stijn Devriendt
Hi Wolfram, I'm surprised that this would work. I've patched the at24 driver as well to use OF data, but took a different approach. As far as I could tell, using compatible = <24c64>; didn't load the right module (module name is at24) and using at24 caused a device id mismatch because at24 is