From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ETHTOOL]: Add support for large eeproms Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080415.192330.29185957.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080414180338.GA18335@google.com> <20080415.003153.30044057.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: msb@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, joe@perches.com, nil@google.com, matthew@wil.cx To: thockin@google.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:42312 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753321AbYDPCX2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:23:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: "Tim Hockin" Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:07:21 -0700 > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:31 AM, David Miller wrote: > > > > This looks fine on the surface. > > > > But I wonder what we can do if we have some EEPROM implementation > > that can only write the whole time at once, and thus will fail > > if you try to do it in pieces? Do we have such a case? > > > > If so this new code could cause regressions. > > No device that I know of behaves that way. It's certainly possible, > but I've never seen any sort of PROM device that has such a > requirement. Fair enough, let's apply the patch and see if anything explode :)