On 17/08/15 16:25, Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 03:59:23PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
On 17/08/15 14:09, Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
+Adding Maxime in the loop
On 16/08/15 16:37, Stefan Wahren wrote:
Another question which spring to mind is, do we want the eeprom to be
in /sys twice, the old and the new way? Backwards compatibility says
the old must stay. Do we want a way to suppress the new? Or should we
be going as far as refractoring the code into a core library, and two
wrapper drivers, old and new?
I think these are questions for the framework maintainers.
One of the reasons for the NVMEM framework is to remove that
duplicate code in the every driver. There was no framework/ABI
which was guiding such old eeprom sysfs entry in first place, so I
dont see an issue in removing it for good. Correct me if am wrong.
The reason for keeping it is backwards compatibility. Having the
contents of the EEPROM as a file in /sys via this driver is now a part
of the Linux ABI. You cannot argue it is not an ABI, just because
there is no framework. Userspace will be assuming it exists at the
specified location. So we cannot remove it, for existing uses of the
driver.
Am Ok as long as someone is happy to maintain it.
Wolfram Sang has been maintaining the AT24 driver since 2008. We need
his ACK to this change, and since this is an i2c driver, he is also
probably the path into mainline for this change.
But we should also look at the bigger picture. The AT25, MAX6875 and
sunxi_sid drivers also have a binary file in /sys. It would be good to
have some sort of plan what to do with these drivers, even if at the
moment only AT24 is under discussion.#
+1
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
