Re: [PATCH] i2c-eeprom_slave: Add support for more eeprom models

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > /*
> >   * FIXME: What to do if only 8 bits of a 16 bit address are sent?
> >   * The <your vendor & eeprom type> sends only 0xff then. Needs verification
> >   * with other EEPROMs, though. We currently use the 8 bit as a valid
> >   * address.
> >   */
> > 
> 
> The eeprom tested is from ST, model M24C64. Should this be added in the code
> or in some doc folder?

I think FIXMEs should be in the source itself.

> I have another question. I'm considering adding a flag to set the virtual
> eeprom in read-only mode on the i2c side (but writable from the sysfs side).
> Should this be implemented as a separate i2c_device_id, or by trying to read
> som configuration flag from devicetree?

Hmm, not sure yet. There is the "read-only" DT binding which makes it
easy but I see two drawbacks:

1) I am not a big fan of describing slave functionality in DT because to
me this is more configuration than hardware description. I know mileages
vary on this one.

2) This is a DT only solution. If we want to support read-only when
instantiating from userspace, we'd need a seperate mechanism to
configure that, like a sysfs-entry. This adds quite some code.

I currently think a seperate id like "24c02ro" will keep things nicely
simple. Obviously, this solution doesn't scale with number of features.
Having a look at the original AT24 driver, I wouldn't expect other new
features coming.

Thoughts?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Hardward Monitoring]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux