From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new-style driver for most I2C EEPROMs Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:33:46 -0700 Message-ID: <200806021233.46781.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <1210883799-25188-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de> <20080602162154.GA11141@pengutronix.de> <20080602205034.3e2b392b@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080602205034.3e2b392b-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Monday 02 June 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > Not really. The 24C00 might answer to 8 I2C addresses, but how do you > care? You only need one address to access the whole data range. > Registering the extra clients is a waste of time and memory, so just > don't do it. One reason the driver claims all the EEPROM addresses used by each chip is to address review feedback from Jean Delvare. ISTR the point was safety: letting other drivers potentially access the device was a bad idea. ;) > Problem solved :) Not really. The "eeprom" driver, or various other legacy drivers knowing about the 0x50..0x57 address range, could bind to those addresses. That problem would not be solved. - Dave _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c