I'll add a warning and a force flag in the next few days and if I'll have a look on block transfers. Now I'm ill and not lucid enough to work on it :) I'll let you know. stefano On Sunday 23 November 2003 01:28, you wrote: > we have two programs, eeprom for small chips and eepromer for larger > ones. > They both suffer from the limitation you describe. > As your program appears to overcome this limitation, and handle both > small and large chips, I'd say it is worth including in our package. > > One thing we would require is that the program contains a big fat > warning, > and a force flag, before writing. See eeprom.c for an example. > > One suggestion you may want to think about is using i2c block reads and > writes > if the bus driver supports them. You can see the kernel/chips/eeprom.c > driver > for an example of this code. > > mds > > Stefano Barbato wrote: > > Thanks Jean and hi to the mailing list. > > I wrote to Jean because I wrote a program to read/write to EEPROMs using > > the SMBus and I would like to share it. > > > > I found problems with 'eepromer' because it requires (based on my > > understanding of the problem, mailing list comments will be very > > appreciated:) a plain I2C capable bus. > > > > My chipset (viapro) is not able to send/recv plain I2C commands > > (master_xfer is set to NULL into my adapter i2c_algorithm structure) but > > it's able to use SMBus transfers and 'eeprog', the program I wrote, just > > use SMBus commands. > > > > The result is that running 'eeprog' I can read/write to 24Cxx EEPROMs > > with any SMBus bus adapter without requiring a plain I2C-capable chipset > > while 'eepromer' or 'eeprom' on such systems will not work. > > > > I'm not an expert on the i2c topic so I'm not sure that my understanding > > of the topic is, well, correct so if somebody here can confirm that > > 'eepromer' has those limits and that 'eeprog' could be useful then I'll > > be happy to know that I've not lost hours of my time for nothing :) > > > > thanks. > > > > stefano > > > > p.s. program URLs are quoted below. > > ---------------------------------------- > > stefano barbato - stefano || codesink.org > > > > On Saturday 22 November 2003 08:40, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > > > Please contact the mailing-list for general discussion, instead of me > > > directly > > > > > > > I'm writing you because I wrote a Linux program to read and write > > > > 24Cxx EEPROMs through the SMBus interface and want to share it with > > > > the community (it's free of course). > > > > > > > > I wrote it because the 'eeprom' and 'eepromer' programs require a I2C > > > > capable chipset (or, at least, this is what I think is the problem :) > > > > and mine does not seem capable of I2C_RW (I'm using the viapro > > > > driver). > > > > > > I don't get it. We have prog/eepromer/eepromer.c that is supposed to to > > > the very same. In which way is your program different? > > > > > > I don't know what you mean with "I2C_RW", but all the bus drivers we > > > have support sending data to the chips. > > > > > > > I think (and hope:) that eeprog (oh, it's called eeprog) url could be > > > > included into a README in the eeprom dir or somewhere in lm-sensors > > > > package so the next more-lucky-then-me can find it if needed. > > > > > > > > info link: > > > > http://codesink.org/eeprog.html > > > > > > > > download: > > > > http://codesink.org/download/eeprog-0.7.3.tar.gz > > > > > > If your program brings something really new, we will, but for now it > > > seems to be just a duplicate of eepromer. It would be preferable to > > > merge our efforts, isn't it? Please explain why eepromer did not work > > > for you, and/or what eeprog does better. > > > > > > Mark D. Studebaker and some other persons on the list are much more > > > knowledged about writing to eeproms than I am, and might be able to > > > discuss it with you.
