[PATCH v2 2/4] doc: Add Atmel AT30TSE serial eeprom

[Eddie James]

On 3/27/23 10:18, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:55:43AM -0500, Eddie James wrote:
>> On 3/21/23 10:46, Eddie James wrote:
>>> On 3/21/23 10:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2023 16:16, Eddie James wrote:
>>>>> The AT30TSE is compatible with the JEDEC EE1004 standard. Document it
>>>>> as a trivial I2C device.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames at linux.ibm.com>
>>>> Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (which you can get for
>>>> example with `git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory
>>>> your patch is touching).
>>>
>>> Oops, sorry, will fix.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml | 2 ++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
>>>>> index 6f482a254a1d..43e26c73a95f 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml
>>>>> @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ properties:
>>>>>              - ams,iaq-core
>>>>>                # i2c serial eeprom (24cxx)
>>>>>              - at,24c08
>>>>> +            # i2c serial eeprom (EE1004 standard)
>>>> AT30TSE?
>>>>
>>>>> +          - atmel,at30tse
>>>> Microchip does not find anything on AT30TSE. Are you sure this is the
>>>> model name?
>>>
>>> Yes: https://www.microchip.com/content/dam/mchp/documents/OTH/ProductDocuments/DataSheets/Atmel-8868-DTS-AT30TSE004A-Datasheet.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe it's actually an 8868? Or should I include the 004A as well?
>>
>> I found some other AT30TSE (AT30TSE752A for example) devices that do not
>> appear compatible with the EE1004 standard, so I will include the full model
>> number.
> If this standard is sufficiently complete, then you might want a EE1004
> fallback compatible. Complete would mean power supply(ies) and any extra
> i/o are defined and the exact device model is discoverable.


I don't think this standard would meet those requirements unfortunately. 
Thanks for the suggestion!

Eddie


>
> Rob