Re: [RFC 9/9] dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c
> >>@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. > > The rule so far has been that the unit address (the value in the node name) > must match the first value in the reg property. I don't see why this rule > should change. To solve this, just name the node eeprom@c042 (or > eeprom@4042 with the correction pointed out earlier in the thread). We can do that; that would mean that people need to find out the values of the #define which will be used in the reg property. It works, but will be cumbersome IMO. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC 9/9] dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c
On 07/20/2015 10:10 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
+
+ eeprom@42 {
+ compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
+ //FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42
+ reg = <0xc042>;
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.
The rule so far has been that the unit address (the value in the node
name) must match the first value in the reg property. I don't see why
this rule should change. To solve this, just name the node
eeprom@c042 (or eeprom@4042 with the correction pointed out
earlier in the thread).
--
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
Re: [RFC 9/9] dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> > +
>> > + eeprom@42 {
>> > + compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
>> > + //FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42
>> > + reg = <0xc042>;
>>
>> 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
Re: [RFC 9/9] dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c
> >+//FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42 > >+reg = <0xc042>; > > I used it in this way: > reg = <(I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42)>; Ah, nice, it was that easy :) Thanks! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC 9/9] dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c
> > +
> > + eeprom@42 {
> > + compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> > + //FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42
> > + reg = <0xc042>;
>
> 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
Re: [RFC 9/9] dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c
Hi Wolfram,
Thank you for the patch.
On Friday 17 July 2015 16:08:29 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Not-Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts | 7 +++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts
> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts index
> bd43ed6d6ec7c0..4d5f2a4c4da1ce 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> /dts-v1/;
>
> +#include
> #include
> #include "tegra124.dtsi"
>
> @@ -1390,6 +1391,12 @@
> reg = <0x56>;
> pagesize = <8>;
> };
> +
> + eeprom@42 {
> + compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> + //FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42
> + reg = <0xc042>;
The node name doesn't match the reg property anymore. Isn't that considered as
a problem ?
> + };
> };
>
> /* Expansion GEN2_I2C_* */
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
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
Re: [RFC 9/9] dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c
On 17.07.2015 17:08, Wolfram Sang wrote:
+
+ eeprom@42 {
+ compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
+ //FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42
+ reg = <0xc042>;
I used it in this way:
reg = <(I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42)>;
+ };
};
/* Expansion GEN2_I2C_* */
--
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
Re: [RFC 9/9] dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c
> + //FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42 > + reg = <0xc042>; That should have been 0x4042, sorry! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
