From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new-style driver for most I2C EEPROMs Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:50:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20080602205034.3e2b392b@hyperion.delvare> References: <1210883799-25188-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de> <20080522222022.68d65cd7@hyperion.delvare> <20080602162154.GA11141@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080602162154.GA11141-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> 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: Wolfram Sang Cc: David Brownell , i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Wolfram, On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:21:54 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > some more comments while working on the driver: I concur with everything, except: > > Oh, BTW, can't you compute this value yourself from byte_len and (flags > > & AT24_EE_ADDR2)? I think so... > > There is at least one exception already (24c00) which covers eight > addresses but actually just needs one. This spoils the calculation of > i2c_addr_mask (and if there is one case, there will be others) :( I > agree, that num_addresses might be more apropriate than i2c_addr_mask. 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. Problem solved :) -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c