Hi, On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:43:07AM +0100, Lars Poeschel wrote: > I see there where to much "no"s to get anything in, but thank you for > your comments and explanations. Not necessarily, just not in this form :) > > > > I wanted to use a fm24c04 i2c fram chip with linux. I grepped the source > > > and found nothing. I later found that my chip can be handled by at24 > > > eeprom driver. It creates a sysfs file called eeprom to read from and > > > write to the chip. Userspace has no chance to distinguish if it is > > > writing an eeprom or a fram chip. > > > > Why should it? > > Because writes are much faster and it doesn't have to take care on erase > cycles. It could use other write strategies on such devices and update > informations that have to survive power downs more often. I agree. I think that a seperate attribute named e.g. 'page_size' would be more helpful than renaming the binary file to fram? > > The method of accessing EEPROMs is used by way more chips than FRAMs. > > So, I'd prefer to have the text updated more generic like "EEPROMs and > > similar devices like RAMs, ROMs, etc...". Describing setting .flags in > > Kconfig is overkill. > > A patch updating Kconfig is below. Looks good from a glimpse, will apply it later. > No one knows all chips out there. > For the fm24c04 I use page_size != chip_size. It does not buffer but it has > two pages, 256 bytes each. Yup, it uses two I2C adresses... Thanks, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
