On 2004-12-09, Mark Studebaker wrote: > 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. DDC monitor EEPROMs *are* EEPROMs so there is no reason to exclude them from this driver. We used to have a specific (ddcmon) driver for these but this too is an error IMHO. Developping different eeprom drivers for different natures of eeproms is silly (how many more?). What the ddcmon driver was doing really belongs to user-space, not kernel-space. There are not that many non-EEPROMs chips in the 0x50-0x57 range, only the Maxim MAX6900 RTC according to sensors-detect (quite a rare chip at that, we don't even have a driver for it yet). > Since detection for eeproms is otherwise poor, it's the only way we have > for robust detection. Except that it only works with memory module EEPROMs. If the checksumming was that important, I guess it would have been the default, which it was not. If it is there for the sole purpose of allowing the user to prevent the eeprom driver from taking over non-eeprom chips, then the "ignore" module parameter can be used to achieve the same effect, faster, plus it is configurable on a per-address basis, while the checksum parameter isn't. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare
