> > +
> > + eeprom@42 {
> > + compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> > + //FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42
> > + reg = <0xc0000042>;
>
> The node name doesn't match the reg property anymore. Isn't that considered
> as
> a problem ?Hmm, true. So far, Rob (CCed) was fine with this approach: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-tegra/msg22760.html @Rob: If we introduce flag bits in the MSBs of an I2C address, the reg property is different from the node name. Is this a problem? Thanks, Wolfram
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
