On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:33:51PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> Rob,
> Could you pay attention to this patch? The patchset review procedure is
> nearly over, while the DT part is only partly reviewed by you.
Pretty sure I commented on this. Not sure what version, you're sending
new versions too fast. Give people time to review.
>
> Thanks
> -Sergey
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:30:37PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
> > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:
> >
> > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit
> > address format error, expected "40000064"
> > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@1120000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address
> > must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"
> >
> > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
> > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <sergey.se...@baikalelectronics.ru>
> > Cc: Alexey Malahov <alexey.mala...@baikalelectronics.ru>
> > Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbog...@alpha.franken.de>
> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Changelog v3:
> > - This is a new patch created as a result of the Rob request to remove
> > the EEPROM-slave bit setting in the DT binndings example until the dtc
> > is fixed.
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > index 4bd430b2b41d..101d78e8f19d 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ examples:
> >
> > eeprom@64 {
> > compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> > - reg = <0x40000064>;
> > + reg = <0x64>;
This is wrong though because "linux,slave-24c02" should have bit 30 set.
(And either the unit-address was wrong or we can define the unit-address
does not include the high bits.)
Rob
