----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron Sierra" <asierra@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 2:53:30 PM
>
> Previously, the at24 driver would bail out in the case of a 16-bit
> addressable EEPROM attached to an SMBus controller. This is because
> SMBus block reads and writes don't map to I2C multi-byte reads and
> writes when the offset portion is 2 bytes.
>
> Instead of bailing out, this patch settles for functioning with single
> byte read SMBus cycles. Writes can be block or single-byte, depending on
> SMBus controller features.
>
> This patch introduces at24_smbus_read_byte_data to transparently handle
> single-byte reads from 8-bit and 16-bit devices.
>
> Functionality has been tested with the following devices:
>
> AT24CM01 attached to Intel ISCH SMBus (1.8 KB/s)
> AT24C512 attached to Intel I801 SMBus (1.4 KB/s)
>
> Signed-off-by: Nate Case <ncase@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Sierra <asierra@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig | 4 +++-
> drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
All,
Shortly after submitting, I found that there are conflicts between this
patch and activity in i2c/for-next. Specifically with this patch:
eeprom: at24: use i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data_or_emulated
Patches 1/3 and 2/3 don't have conflicts. I've reworked this patch (3/3)
and retested on top of i2c/for-next. Should I submit all three patches
as v2 or wait for the first two to be reviewed?
-Aaron
--
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
