Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] i2c: slave-eeprom: Add an OF device ID table | From | Javier Martinez Canillas <> | Date | Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:36:25 +0200 |
| |
Hello Wolfram,
On 08/14/2017 09:52 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 12:12:56PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> The driver doesn't have a struct of_device_id table but supported devices >> are registered via Device Trees as shown in the following DT binding doc: >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-designware.txt > > Uhhh, that needs to be fixed to something else! I don't think i2c slave > functionality should be described in DT. The slave functionality is pure > software, so IMO it doesn't match the "HW description" requirement. >
Right, indeed.
>> But this works on the assumption that a I2C device registered via OF will >> always match a legacy I2C device ID and that the MODALIAS reported will >> always be of the form i2c:<device>. >> >> And this could change in the future so the correct approach is to have an >> OF device ID table if the devices are registered via OF. >> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com> > > Thanks for finding the issue, still NAK to this patch. Are you > interested in updating the docs? >
What kind of change are you looking for? The example was introduced by commit 04606ccc84e3 ("i2c: designware: introducing I2C_SLAVE definitions") that says:
- A example was added to designware-core.txt Documentation that shows how the slave can be setup using DTS
So I could change this example to instead use a real EEPROM compatible (e.g: "microchip,24c02") instead of "linux,slave-24c02". Would that be correct?
Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement Red Hat
|  |