Add support for STMicroelectronics M24LR RFID/NFC EEPROM chips.
These devices use two I2C addresses: the primary address provides
access to control and system parameter registers, while the
secondary address is used for EEPROM access.

Signed-off-by: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v5:
 - No changes and already reviewed by Krzysztof Kozlowski
 - Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250608182714.3359441-2-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com/

Changes in v4:
 - Moved the binding file to the eeprom/ directory
 - Updated reg property to use items: with per-address descriptions
   instead of minItems/maxItems
 - Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250606120631.3140054-2-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com/

Changes in v3:
 - Dropped reference to the i2c-mux binding.
 - Added reference to the nvmem binding to reflect EEPROM usage.
 - Updated 'reg' property to represent the device using two I2C addresses.
 - Fixed DT schema errors and yamllint warnings.
 - Removed the unused 'pagesize' property.
 - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250601153022.2027919-2-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com/

Changes in v2:
 - Moved file from misc/ to eeprom/.
 - Updated $id and $ref paths.
 - Reformatted maintainers field.
 - Clarified description text.
 - Added enum and default to pagesize.
 - Replaced additionalProperties with unevaluatedProperties.
 - Revised example to use explicit i2c mux layout.
 - Fixed style and formatting issues.
 - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250531081159.2007319-2-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com/
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/eeprom/st,m24lr.yaml  | 52 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/st,m24lr.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/st,m24lr.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/st,m24lr.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..0a0820e9d11f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/st,m24lr.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/eeprom/st,m24lr.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: STMicroelectronics M24LR NFC/RFID EEPROM
+
+maintainers:
+  - Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
+
+description:
+  STMicroelectronics M24LR series are dual-interface (RF + I2C)
+  EEPROM chips. These devices support I2C-based access to both
+  memory and a system area that controls authentication and configuration.
+  They expose two I2C addresses, one for the system parameter sector and
+  one for the EEPROM.
+
+allOf:
+  - $ref: /schemas/nvmem/nvmem.yaml#
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    enum:
+      - st,m24lr04e-r
+      - st,m24lr16e-r
+      - st,m24lr64e-r
+
+  reg:
+    items:
+      - description: I2C address used for control/system registers
+      - description: I2C address used for EEPROM memory access
+
+required:
+  - compatible
+  - reg
+
+unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    i2c {
+      #address-cells = <1>;
+      #size-cells = <0>;
+
+      eeprom@57 {
+        compatible = "st,m24lr04e-r";
+        reg = <0x57>, /* primary-device */
+              <0x53>; /* secondary-device */
+      };
+    };
+...
-- 
2.43.0

On 04/07/2025 14:39, Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi wrote:
> Add support for STMicroelectronics M24LR RFID/NFC EEPROM chips.
> These devices use two I2C addresses: the primary address provides
> access to control and system parameter registers, while the
> secondary address is used for EEPROM access.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes in v5:
>  - No changes and already reviewed by Krzysztof Kozlowski
>  - Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250608182714.3359441-2-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com/

So you just ignore the tag?

<form letter>
This is a friendly reminder during the review process.

It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.

If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions
of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed
significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is
"received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing
list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost
patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for
tags received on the version they apply.

Please read:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577

If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
</form letter>


Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 17:10:07 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/07/2025 14:39, Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi wrote:
> > Add support for STMicroelectronics M24LR RFID/NFC EEPROM chips.
> > These devices use two I2C addresses: the primary address provides
> > access to control and system parameter registers, while the
> > secondary address is used for EEPROM access.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v5:
> >  - No changes and already reviewed by Krzysztof Kozlowski
> >  - Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250608182714.3359441-2-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com/
> 
> So you just ignore the tag?
> 
> <form letter>
> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
> 
> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
> 
> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions
> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed
> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is
> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing
> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost
> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for
> tags received on the version they apply.
> 
> Please read:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
> 
> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
> </form letter>

Hi Krzysztof,

Thank you for the clear explanation. I wasn't aware of the process,
I will make sure to include the tags properly in future versions.

Best regards,
Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi