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

[Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Wolfram,

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:20:51 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> hopefully, I now have the time to finish at24 for good. Do you think it
> can go through the next merge window?

Yes, it can and should.

> > > 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.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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