Re: [PATCH 4/4] i2c: cgbc: Add virtual storage devices on the virtual I2C bus

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(=
s) to consider:
- [Medium] Typo in the software node label property for the BIOS EEPROM ('e=
prom' instead of 'eeprom').
--

--- Patch [4]: [PATCH 4/4] i2c: cgbc: Add virtual storage devices on the vi=
rtual I2C bus ---
commit 98b86180cbc7d34ae655eafe5dcbc85e15d4bc49
Author: Thomas Richard (congatec GmbH) <[email protected]>

i2c: cgbc: Add virtual storage devices on the virtual I2C bus

This commit adds support for virtual storage devices exposed by the Board
Controller on its virtual I2C bus. It uses the generic 24c01 at24 driver
for all virtual storage devices, customizing their parameters via
software_node properties.

> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cgbc.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cgbc.c
> index c3f1c83b105a8..418de90e11bb8 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cgbc.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cgbc.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -372,6 +372,149 @@ static const struct i2c_adapter cgbc_i2c_adapter[] =
=3D {

[ ... ]

> +static const struct property_entry cgbc_bios_eeprom_props[] =3D {
> +	PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("size", 32),
> +	PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("pagesize", 1),
> +	PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("label", "cgbc-bios-eprom"),

[Severity: Medium]
Does this label contain a typo? The other devices use the spelling "eeprom",
but this one uses "eprom".=20

Since this label is exposed to userspace via sysfs (as an nvmem device),
could this naming inconsistency break udev rules or user scripts relying on
a standard "eeprom" naming scheme for these storage devices?

> +	{ }
> +};

--=20
Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260804-cgbc-i2c-s=
[email protected]?part=3D4