[PATCH] i2c-eeprom_slave: Add comment about address handling

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

 



The behaviour of the EEPROM in the case where we only send in a
8bit address to a 16bit address EEPROM is not defined. Added comment
about that the slave-eeprom behaves diffrently from how an actuall
device does (only one model measured).

Signed-off-by: Björn Ardö <bjorn.ardo@xxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-eeprom.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-eeprom.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-eeprom.c
index 773afaa..92ff999 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-eeprom.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-eeprom.c
@@ -11,6 +11,12 @@
  * pointer, yet implementation is deferred until the need actually arises.
  */
 
+/*
+ * FIXME: What to do if only 8 bits of a 16 bit address are sent?
+ * The ST-M24C64 sends only 0xff then. Needs verification with other
+ * EEPROMs, though. We currently use the 8 bit as a valid address.
+ */
+
 #include <linux/bitfield.h>
 #include <linux/i2c.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
-- 
2.1.4




[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