Hello: (summary of some IRC discussions...) > On 2004-12-10, Mark Studebaker wrote: > > IMHO the eeprom driver is more of a demonstration driver than one of > > great and obvious value, so achieving consensus on the value of > > sub-features (checksum, Vaio) is difficult, and performace concerns are > > secondary. In as much as eeprom is a demonstration driver, with very little actual usefulness except as a test device for us sensors people... I think it could probably be removed from the kernel altogether if we create a user- space (w/ i2c-dev interface) replacement for it. * Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> [2004-12-10 09:42:21 +0100]: > This has certainly been true when the driver was first written and then > maintained as a driver of the lm_sensors project, and was only used for > memory module EEPROMs. However, we now start seeing more different > natures of EEPROMs (proprietary on laptops, ethernet devices to name > only two of them) for which the eeprom driver can be useful. Remember > that a number of people even asked for write support in the driver (and > this might as well happen in the future). If read/write support is needed, IMHO it should be implemented as a proper char device. The sysfs interface of the current driver makes little sense. OTOH, note that it would be possible to break RAM modules *permanently* by misusing such a device. The eeprom itself would still work, but the SIMM or DIMM that it sits on would be effectively broken. I don't personally consider that a good argument against an eeprom char device, but some do. Regards, -- Mark M. Hoffman mhoffman at lightlink.com
