From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/9] Add simple NVMEM Framework via regmap. Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:19:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20150809151916.GF14271@lunn.ch> References: <1437995567-11203-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1438693367.3793.29.camel@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1438693367.3793.29.camel-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla , stefan.wahren-eS4NqCHxEME@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org, khilman-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , s.hauer-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org, sboyd-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, mporter-OWPKS81ov/FWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, pantelis.antoniou-OWPKS81ov/FWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , Mark Brown , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-msm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, wxt-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Hi Srinivas The AT24 eeprom driver contains the comment: /* * Export the EEPROM bytes through sysfs, since that's convenient. * By default, only root should see the data (maybe passwords etc) */ and as you would expect from this: # ls -l ./devices/platform/soc/soc:aips-bus@40000000/40066000.i2c/i2c-0/0-0050/eeprom -rw------- 1 root root 512 Aug 9 10:16 ./devices/platform/soc/soc:aips-bus@40000000/40066000.i2c/i2c-0/0-0050/eeprom The AT25 and the MAX6875 driver are the same. However nvmem has different defaults: # ls -l ./devices/platform/soc/soc:aips-bus@40000000/40066000.i2c/i2c-0/0-0050/0-00500/nvmem -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Aug 9 10:16 ./devices/platform/soc/soc:aips-bus@40000000/40066000.i2c/i2c-0/0-0050/0-00500/nvmem Has this been considered and discussed? Thanks Andrew