From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8EAC433E0 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 18:24:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176E964E31 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 18:24:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233282AbhBISYe (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:24:34 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35206 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233226AbhBISV5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:21:57 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com (mail-ej1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE3B4C06178B for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:21:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id jj19so33342357ejc.4 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:21:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7cdkDnURV9uneBG3FZf4huY2uy2h38N8kqyzGlj6AtI=; b=zYwZZ4NjNSfAiSwsBYVuFR9u8PsuFfwnsy/wdZFz8ssGxdan5DbrHrhRiV8KzLf6tO rNCef+GlVPADxaWfKmY5x7TEuhWk4comNp0sfHsOFQcrmU1MAhJuxD7R9vUmC4rfVyrt ENnQ4xCFZnc99McojJkekPBldx66IiSH0WgOHnVd0yudSSNz8DFcbftNnqV+EXyssyq7 Sjxvaya1p3W00HTeGXy2VY0t1Ok2C4M2pfkHR+q012fvgk8EA/hn6zoZniiXOc17j3Uq EC1hcay5GJz34KKl1JM4Hi2xObTc7DOFxKgC5FfoleFg0ml5pPWRGpbjAOXV1mbH+++C QkVw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7cdkDnURV9uneBG3FZf4huY2uy2h38N8kqyzGlj6AtI=; b=rcxn7BOHiIZbVoado/MDMp4VmosV2qabvF0kSI7cAp/of1CZDg/DjvgQhSeYhbmMaa 2F1jV2ZxNqYcN988qxmMeJruOOlGamIqwYguO5/1d9FZ34JN3INe6ZGPdiUqH+OtpQYC DxraKQp9QS6yF32dy/65CZcdcOsdrsEU/lB3j4VolYokOskqlSGeVxPvxhHfFABnpAEW 302X7rFWRLSpvNspDb8bdX7gYuDzYpCj5JLSdQkddObIE6mT1VjXS6eBf9/shvB4J5yP hEgUAS9MkSYfw8dX9tvydKM/KR5BiUx9wCjHf+OZ5aKqwbPJ9GVJ6y8IMgPkRTY6oyFl iBjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531f1gFdW6BLB7MnCkUpIZQuhYwiG/jUAxhK5z8z8uQm91irdvSR mfP7+jGzQJZjDeHIdC66+ajUbsgYH9oIKGcWQoZISQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzfO6VJFRZMDFakluIwxGzSS3vgzvTNq1ZZNEEpzZEUvu1Ol2fCOByPa461RddADA9Vpjd5NXJawuBAuX+BuQE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4707:: with SMTP id y7mr23481756ejq.445.1612894875564; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:21:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210128111343.2295888-1-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20210128113353.GN963@ninjato> In-Reply-To: From: Bartosz Golaszewski Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 19:21:04 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01 To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Wolfram Sang , Rob Herring , Linux I2C , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Linux-Renesas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 3:16 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Bartosz, > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 11:33 AM Bartosz Golaszewski > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:59 PM Geert Uytterhoeven > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:33 PM Wolfram Sang > > > 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