Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

Hello Geert, On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Javier, > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas > wrote: >>> I think we should talk about the same case: Let me repeat what I did: >>> >>> 1) I added

Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

Hi Javier, On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> I think we should talk about the same case: Let me repeat what I did: >> >> 1) I added your patch "eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table" >> 2) I added an EEPROM node to an I2C >> >> +

Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

> > I think we should talk about the same case: Let me repeat what I did: > > 1) I added your patch "eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table" > 2) I added an EEPROM node to an I2C > > + eeprom@50 { > + compatible = "renesas,24c01"; > + reg = <0x50>; > + }; > >

Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:19:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Wolfram, > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > >> I don't have a DT based system at hand now, but I'll test it again and > >> let you know probably tomorrow. > > > > I

Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

Hello Wolfram, On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> I don't have a DT based system at hand now, but I'll test it again and >> let you know probably tomorrow. > > I will try again today, too. Thanks! > Ok, I had some time to do some tests again. I used

Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

> I don't have a DT based system at hand now, but I'll test it again and > let you know probably tomorrow. I will try again today, too. Thanks! signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

Hello Wolfram, On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> > But there is a dependency, no? If I apply the driver patch, >> > non-converted device trees will not find their eeproms anymore. So, I >> >> I don't think that's correct. If you apply this patch before

Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

> > But there is a dependency, no? If I apply the driver patch, > > non-converted device trees will not find their eeproms anymore. So, I > > I don't think that's correct. If you apply this patch before the DTS > changes, the driver will still match using the I2C device ID table > like it has

Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

Hello Wolfram, On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> Patches can be applied independently since the DTS changes without driver >> changes are no-op and the OF table won't be used without the DTS changes. > > But there is a dependency, no? If I apply the

Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

Hello Wolfram, On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > This series is a follow-up to patch [0] that added an OF device ID table > to the at24 EEPROM driver. As you suggested [1], this version instead of > adding entries for every used

[RESEND PATCH v5 00/16] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table

Hello Wolfram, This series is a follow-up to patch [0] that added an OF device ID table to the at24 EEPROM driver. As you suggested [1], this version instead of adding entries for every used tuple, only adds a single entry for each chip type using the "atmel" vendor as a generic