Hi Javier,
2017-06-06 18:04 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>: > Hello Masahiro, > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Masahiro Yamada > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi. >> >> 2017-05-23 22:34 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>: >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 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
