On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Wolfram Sang <w...@the-dreams.de> wrote: > >> > + >> > + 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?
No, I don't it is a problem. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html