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

[Wolfram Sang <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1435 bytes --]

Hi Jean,

hopefully, I now have the time to finish at24 for good. Do you think it
can go through the next merge window?

> > As I said, my thought there is to make it safe for most
> > developers to just say "24c32" (or whatever) and have a
> > sane default ... while making sure that they *always* have
> > a way to set chips up to be readonly, or provide a better
> > page size (if they need better bulk write speeds).
> 
> I agree on the principle. But the question remains: what is a sane
> default in this context? Using the smallest page size amongst commonly
> used EEPROM models? Using the smallest page size amongst known models?
> Using the smallest possible page size (that would be 1 byte for all
> EEPROM sizes as I understand it)? This 3rd possibility would probably
> be no better than defaulting to read-only, as the write performance
> would be so bad that every developer would specify custom platform data.

Hmm, I tend to set all page_sizes to 1. It is a bit awkward to write
"double check those parameters" and then provide values you cannot be
absolutely sure of. Still, a minimal write-possibility may come in
handy, I think. I agree with Jean here, that it will be so slow, that
developers surely will create their own platform_devices.

All the best,

   Wolfram

-- 
  Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de
 Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

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