[PATCH v2] i2c: eeprom: Use reg property instead of offset and size

[Michal Simek]

On 08. 07. 20 12:55, Michal Simek wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06. 07. 20 7:56, Heiko Schocher wrote:
>> Hi Michal,
>>
>> Am 17.06.2020 um 05:12 schrieb Simon Glass:
>>> Hi Michal,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 07:53, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16. 06. 20 15:43, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 07:41, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remove adhoc dt binding for fixed-partition definition for i2c eeprom.
>>>>>> fixed-partition are using reg property instead of offset/size pair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>>> - Bootcount tested on zynqmp zcu104
>>>>>> - Add missing address/size cells
>>>>>> - Use dev_read_addr_size_index
>>>>>> - Check parameters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just build tested - ge_bx50v3_defconfig
>>>>>> Definitely please retest on hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   arch/arm/dts/imx53-ppd-uboot.dtsi    | 15 +++++++++------
>>>>>>   arch/arm/dts/imx6q-bx50v3-uboot.dtsi | 12 +++++++-----
>>>>>>   drivers/misc/i2c_eeprom.c            | 20 ++++++++++----------
>>>>>>   3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a sandbox I2C EEPROM, so you should be able to use the
>>>>> existing test, right?
>>>>
>>>> The way how I have tested it was via drivers/bootcount/i2c-eeprom.c
>>>> driver which define which eeprom stores it.
>>>> Do you have any existing tests for bootcount done via sandbox?
>>>>
>>>> If bootcount is not the right way to go then doing this code should be
>>>> better way. It means just define some partitions (0 size - for failure,
>>>> then proper range, proper write, write behind size for failure).
>>>
>>> Can you use drivers/misc/i2c_eeprom.c?
>>>
>>> See test/dm/bootcount.c for the sandbox tests for bootcount.
>>
>> Any updates on this?
>>
>> @Robert: May you find time to test this change and give us feedback?
> 
> Just came from my vacation and it will take some time to get to this.
> If anybody wants to create that test feel free to do it.
> Definitely testing on Robert side would be good.

I have sent v3 of this patch with adding testcase for i2c eeprom based
bootcount as Simon mentioned. Also tested it on xilinx zynqmp zcu104
board. Please take a look at it.

Thanks,
Michal