* [PATCH] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01
@ 2021-01-28 11:13 Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-01-28 11:33 ` Wolfram Sang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2021-01-28 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartosz Golaszewski, Rob Herring
Cc: Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c, devicetree, linux-renesas-soc,
Geert Uytterhoeven
Document the compatible value for the ROHM Semiconductor BR24G01 I2C bus
EEPROM.
While at it, sort the entries alphabetically.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at24.yaml | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at24.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at24.yaml
index d5117c638b75c76c..021d8ae42da318e4 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at24.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/at24.yaml
@@ -95,9 +95,6 @@ properties:
pattern: spd$
# These are special cases that don't conform to the above pattern.
# Each requires a standard at24 model as fallback.
- - items:
- - const: rohm,br24t01
- - const: atmel,24c01
- items:
- const: nxp,se97b
- const: atmel,24c02
@@ -113,6 +110,12 @@ properties:
- items:
- const: renesas,r1ex24128
- const: atmel,24c128
+ - items:
+ - const: rohm,br24g01
+ - const: atmel,24c01
+ - items:
+ - const: rohm,br24t01
+ - const: atmel,24c01
label:
description: Descriptive name of the EEPROM.
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01
2021-01-28 11:13 [PATCH] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01 Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2021-01-28 11:33 ` Wolfram Sang
2021-01-28 11:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2021-01-28 11:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski, Rob Herring, linux-i2c, devicetree,
linux-renesas-soc
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 318 bytes --]
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:13:43PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Document the compatible value for the ROHM Semiconductor BR24G01 I2C bus
> EEPROM.
What is the difference between those two? Could one also be the fallback
of the other (just in the highly unlikely case we need "generic" Rohm
handling somewhen)?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01
2021-01-28 11:33 ` Wolfram Sang
@ 2021-01-28 11:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-05 10:33 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2021-01-28 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfram Sang
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski, Rob Herring, Linux I2C,
open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS,
Linux-Renesas
Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:33 PM Wolfram Sang
<wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:13:43PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Document the compatible value for the ROHM Semiconductor BR24G01 I2C bus
> > EEPROM.
>
> What is the difference between those two? Could one also be the fallback
> of the other (just in the highly unlikely case we need "generic" Rohm
> handling somewhen)?
Good question. The datasheets look similar.
Parametric search on rohm.com says the G-series differs in using
"Cu wire bonding".
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01
2021-01-28 11:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2021-02-05 10:33 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2021-02-09 14:16 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bartosz Golaszewski @ 2021-02-05 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: Wolfram Sang, Rob Herring, Linux I2C,
open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS,
Linux-Renesas
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:59 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfram,
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:33 PM Wolfram Sang
> <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:13:43PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Document the compatible value for the ROHM Semiconductor BR24G01 I2C bus
> > > EEPROM.
> >
> > What is the difference between those two? Could one also be the fallback
> > of the other (just in the highly unlikely case we need "generic" Rohm
> > handling somewhen)?
>
> Good question. The datasheets look similar.
> Parametric search on rohm.com says the G-series differs in using
> "Cu wire bonding".
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
I'm fine with the current form as it's simpler than using two
fallbacks. Do you want to submit another version anyway or can I pick
it up?
Bartosz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01
2021-02-05 10:33 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
@ 2021-02-09 14:16 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-09 18:21 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2021-02-09 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartosz Golaszewski
Cc: Wolfram Sang, Rob Herring, Linux I2C,
open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS,
Linux-Renesas
Hi Bartosz,
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 11:33 AM Bartosz Golaszewski
<bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:59 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:33 PM Wolfram Sang
> > <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:13:43PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > Document the compatible value for the ROHM Semiconductor BR24G01 I2C bus
> > > > EEPROM.
> > >
> > > What is the difference between those two? Could one also be the fallback
> > > of the other (just in the highly unlikely case we need "generic" Rohm
> > > handling somewhen)?
> >
> > Good question. The datasheets look similar.
> > Parametric search on rohm.com says the G-series differs in using
> > "Cu wire bonding".
>
> I'm fine with the current form as it's simpler than using two
> fallbacks. Do you want to submit another version anyway or can I pick
> it up?
If you're happy with it, then I'm happy, too ;-)
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01
2021-02-09 14:16 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2021-02-09 18:21 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bartosz Golaszewski @ 2021-02-09 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: Wolfram Sang, Rob Herring, Linux I2C,
open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS,
Linux-Renesas
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 3:16 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Bartosz,
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 11:33 AM Bartosz Golaszewski
> <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:59 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:33 PM Wolfram Sang
> > > <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:13:43PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > Document the compatible value for the ROHM Semiconductor BR24G01 I2C bus
> > > > > EEPROM.
> > > >
> > > > What is the difference between those two? Could one also be the fallback
> > > > of the other (just in the highly unlikely case we need "generic" Rohm
> > > > handling somewhen)?
> > >
> > > Good question. The datasheets look similar.
> > > Parametric search on rohm.com says the G-series differs in using
> > > "Cu wire bonding".
> >
> > I'm fine with the current form as it's simpler than using two
> > fallbacks. Do you want to submit another version anyway or can I pick
> > it up?
>
> If you're happy with it, then I'm happy, too ;-)
> Thanks!
>
Applied, thanks!
Bartosz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-02-09 18:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-28 11:13 [PATCH] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01 Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-01-28 11:33 ` Wolfram Sang
2021-01-28 11:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-05 10:33 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2021-02-09 14:16 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-09 18:21 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.