Re: [PATCH v3] New-style I2C and SMBus EEPROM driver (with device_ids)

From: Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
Cc: David Brownell <david-b-yBeKhBN/0LDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>,
	i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] New-style I2C and SMBus EEPROM driver (with device_ids)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:09:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080611110921.5bf770dd@hyperion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080611073323.GA4257-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:33:25 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > AT24_FLAG_24C00 (doesn't really matter), and AT24C01 needs 128
> > > addresses?? (please, someone, prove me wrong)
> > 
> > Why do you think so? My personal guess is that they simply forgot to
> > mention the address in the datasheet. A chip responding to all
> > addresses would prevent any other chip from being connected to the bus,
> > that's impractical enough to be reasonably certain that no manufacturer
> > did this.
> 
> No I2C-address is mentioned in the whole datasheet; all the timing
> diagrams put the memory offset to the place where one would expect the
> I2C-address; the pins usually named A0-A2 are not connected...

Ooch. I didn't notice the timing diagrams... OMG.

> Maybe it once made the chip one cent cheaper, I dunno, but I wouldn't be
> that surprised :) Doesn't really matter for at24, luckily.

Indeed. If this chip is the crazy thing you suspect (and I now fear you
are correct), it's not compatible with the other EEPROMs, so we don't
really care about it.

-- 
Jean Delvare

_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c