On 01.07.2024 11:46, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:23 AM <Andrei.Simion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> For those types of eeprom 24AA025E{48, 64} adjusting offset is not required (at24_get_offset_adj()).
>>>> So, indeed, it is an entanglement in logic.
>>>> To keep the implementation as it is:
>>>> adjoff (which is a flag that indicates when to use the adjusting offset) needs to be 1 for old compatibles but for these new ones needs to be 0.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is enough not to break the existing users. What are your thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wait... is the adjoff field effectively a boolean? Why u8?
>>>
>>
>> struct at24_data contains offset_adj which will get value calling at24_get_offset_adj()) if adjoff is true (1).
>> Yes, adjoff needs to be treated as a boolean. I will change it in the next version.
>>
>
> No, wait. Why can't you just do:
>
> AT24_CHIP_DATA(at24_data_24aa025e48, 48 / 8, AT24_FLAG_READONLY);
>
> and avoid this whole new macro variant entirely?
>
just AT24_CHIP_DATA(at24_data_24aa025e48, 48 / 8, AT24_FLAG_READONLY):
# hexdump -C /sys/bus/nvmem/devices/1-00532/cells/eui48@fa\,0
00000000 ff ff ff ff ff ff |......|
00000006
# hexdump -C /sys/bus/nvmem/devices/1-00521/cells/eui48@fa\,0
00000000 ff ff ff ff ff ff |......|
00000006
with this patch (adjoff false and new macro)
# hexdump -C /sys/bus/nvmem/devices/1-00521/cells/eui48@fa\,0
00000000 04 91 62 [the rest bytes] |..b...|
00000006
# hexdump -C /sys/bus/nvmem/devices/1-00532/cells/eui48@fa\,0
00000000 04 91 62 [the rest bytes] |..b..m|
00000006
#
> Bart
--
Andrei Simion
MPU32 Engineer|Microchip Technology Inc.
