I think the checksum code is useful because checksum=1 prevents the module from claiming ddc monitor eeproms and other devices in its address space 50-57. Since detection for eeproms is otherwise poor, it's the only way we have for robust detection. Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi all, > > Any objection to me removing the checksumming code from the (i2c) eeprom > driver? Deepak had suggested we should do so a long time ago [1], and I > fully agree with his position. The checksum is application-specific and > verifying it doesn't belong to the kernel-space. The checksumming code > we (optionally) use at the moment only covers memory module EEPROMs as > far as I know, while EEPROMs exposed on I2C/SMBus may be of a variety of > other natures. > > [1] http://archives.andrew.net.au/lm-sensors/msg21194.html > > Thanks, > -- > Jean Delvare > >
