From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Daney Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c-EEPROM: Export memory accessor Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:46:17 -0700 Message-ID: <50902079.30406@gmail.com> References: <1351699009-4217-1-git-send-email-panto@antoniou-consulting.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1351699009-4217-1-git-send-email-panto-wVdstyuyKrO8r51toPun2/C9HSW9iNxf@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Pantelis Antoniou Cc: Wolfram Sang , "Ben Dooks (embedded platforms)" , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Koen Kooi , Matt Porter , Russ Dill , linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On 10/31/2012 08:56 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Various platforms need access to the EEPROM in other > places besides their platform registration callbacks. > Export the memory accessor to the i2c_client i2c_clients are *not* intrinsically memory, so adding this to the generic i2c_client structure doesn't really make sense. What would the semantics of this interface be with respect to temperature sensors and GPIO expanders? NACK. > and implement > it for the at24 driver. > > And before you ask, no, the platform callback can't be used > for anything that depends on DT. Why can't you just allocate (and populate) a struct at24_platform_data for the device if it isn't supplied by whatever created the device?