Re: I2C eeprom compatibles? (was Re: [PATCH/RFC 03/19] ARM: shmobile: gose: add i2c2 bus to device tree)

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:32:15AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:06:48AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > On Friday 18 December 2015 08:35:32 Wolfram Sang wrote: >> > > > >> > > > It seems to me

Re: I2C eeprom compatibles? (was Re: [PATCH/RFC 03/19] ARM: shmobile: gose: add i2c2 bus to device tree)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:32:15AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:06:48AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 18 December 2015 08:35:32 Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > > > It seems to me that we have some consensus around: > > > > > > > > compatible =

Re: I2C eeprom compatibles? (was Re: [PATCH/RFC 03/19] ARM: shmobile: gose: add i2c2 bus to device tree)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:06:48AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 18 December 2015 08:35:32 Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > It seems to me that we have some consensus around: > > > > > > compatible = "renesas,r1ex24002", "24c02"; > > > > Thinking again, "generic,24c02" or

Re: I2C eeprom compatibles? (was Re: [PATCH/RFC 03/19] ARM: shmobile: gose: add i2c2 bus to device tree)

On Friday 18 December 2015 08:35:32 Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > It seems to me that we have some consensus around: > > > > compatible = "renesas,r1ex24002", "24c02"; > > Thinking again, "generic,24c02" or "generic-24c02" could also be an > option. > > > Should this be added to

I2C eeprom compatibles? (was Re: [PATCH/RFC 03/19] ARM: shmobile: gose: add i2c2 bus to device tree)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:02:39PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:39:47AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > >> > >+ eeprom@50 { > > >> > >+ compatible = "renesas,24c02"; > > >> > > >