Re: [PATCH v3 01/21] dt-bindings: i2c: eeprom: Document manufacturer used as generic fallback

From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
	Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>,
	David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/21] dt-bindings: i2c: eeprom: Document manufacturer used as generic fallback
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:27:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170419232759.mw6g6fwy4xvjaopv@rob-hp-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170414010445.21727-2-javier@osg.samsung.com>

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:04:25PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The at24 driver allows to register I2C EEPROM chips using different vendor
> and devices, but the I2C subsystem does not take the vendor into account
> when matching using the I2C table since it only has device entries.
> 
> But when matching using an OF table, both the vendor and device has to be
> taken into account so the driver defines only a set of compatible strings
> using the "atmel" vendor as a generic fallback for compatible I2C devices.
> 
> Document in the Device Tree binding document that this manufacturer should
> be used as the generic fallback.
> 
> Suggested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> Changes in v3: None
> Changes in v2: None
> 
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt
> index 5696eb508e95..d0395f14e2b3 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt
> @@ -17,7 +17,8 @@ Required properties:
>  	"renesas,r1ex24002"
>  
>  	 If there is no specific driver for <manufacturer>, a generic
> -	 driver based on <type> is selected. Possible types are:
> +	 driver based on <type> and manufacturer "atmel" is selected.
> +	 Possible types are:

This isn't quite right. What the driver does isn't really relevant to 
the binding.

These types with no vendor are used as the compatible string, so we have 
to allow them. But it should be clear that no vendor is deprecated. 
Ironically, it is a lot of Atmel boards that do this. 

We should also explicitly list what are valid manufacturers. We also 
have "at" as a vendor prefix which perhaps we should explicitly say is 
deprecated.

Rob