As the other thread states, "eeprom" is far too vague, and it is certainly not documented, and does not say anything meaningful about the protocol used to talk to the eeprom. Sure, most i2c eeproms use the same protocol,
Not at all! Pretty much every size of 24c has its own protocol; and some manufacturers have special extensions for locking parts of the array, etc. A driver can ignore that last part, but not the first. So the SEEPROM size should be part of its "compatible" name; simplest way for that is to use the model number.
but an assumption cannot be made that that will always be the case. Plus, the namespace will collide with non-i2c eeproms. "i2c-eeprom" is better, but not great. Before a value like "i2c-eeprom" can be acceptable, it must be documented and reviewed as to exactly what it means, and even then I'm uncomfortable with it. However, on the other point, Jon is correct. The first value in the list should be "atmel,24c32", not "at24,24c32".
Yeah. So perhaps "atmel,24c32","24c32" ? I'm not terribly happy with that last name, but these devices are _very_ common. Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
