On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 7:46 PM Luca Weiss <l...@lucaweiss.eu> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On 18-08-2025 5:51 p.m., Rob Herring wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 05:37:54PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote: > >> Add the compatible for an 64Kb EEPROM from Belling. > > > > It is generally not required to add a compatible here assuming > > "atmel,24c64" is enough to identify the specific device (i.e. read the > > device's ID registers). If it is not sufficient, then some details here > > about why would be useful. > > I thought DT was meant to describe the hardware, and this specific > EEPROM on the device is a Belling BL24S64, and it's software-compatible > to this generic atmel compatible. > That's why we have compatible = "belling,bl24s64", "atmel,24c64"; > > Am I missing something, or misunderstanding how DT is meant to be written? >
Right, this is what we've been doing historically which is evident by the number of compatibles we have in the schema that are never mentioned in the driver C code. Bartosz
