| Message ID | 20210128111343.2295888-1-geert+renesas@glider.be |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 5366c48f327ec9e0261333a876384a26da91c854 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Document ROHM BR24G01 | expand |
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
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
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.
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(-)