Re: [PATCH RFC] eeprom: at24: extend driver to plug into the NVMEM framework

[Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

On 17/08/15 14:09, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:01:24PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>
>> +Adding Maxime in the loop
>>
>> On 16/08/15 16:37, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>>>> Another question which spring to mind is, do we want the eeprom to be
>>>>> in /sys twice, the old and the new way? Backwards compatibility says
>>>>> the old must stay. Do we want a way to suppress the new? Or should we
>>>>> be going as far as refractoring the code into a core library, and two
>>>>> wrapper drivers, old and new?
>>> I think these are questions for the framework maintainers.
>>>
>> One of the reasons for the NVMEM framework is to remove that
>> duplicate code in the every driver.  There was no framework/ABI
>> which was guiding such old eeprom sysfs entry in first place, so I
>> dont see an issue in removing it for good. Correct me if am wrong.
>
> The reason for keeping it is backwards compatibility. Having the
> contents of the EEPROM as a file in /sys via this driver is now a part
> of the Linux ABI. You cannot argue it is not an ABI, just because
> there is no framework. Userspace will be assuming it exists at the
> specified location. So we cannot remove it, for existing uses of the
> driver.
Am Ok as long as someone is happy to maintain it.

--srini
>
> However, for new uses of this driver, it is O.K. to only have the
> NVMEM file.
>
>        Andrew
>