On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:53:50PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Not sure if you refer to something I said, but that's not exactly what > I said (or if I did, it no longer applied). I am fine with a driver > that allows writing to EEPROMs as long long as it is a new-style I2C > driver. What I don't want is a driver that binds automatically to > anything at address 0x50-0x57 and lets people write to it, because > users would inevitably break their hardware from times to times. Understood. When I discovered at24.c, I thought I found a thread coming to the conclusion I wrote. Well, I can't find this thread right now, but probably I simlpy got it wrong.
> I totally agree (even though I still don't get what's wrong with the > user-space approach that has been working for years, with i2c-dev and > eeprog). For customer requirement specifications, it can make things a lot easier if you just say: We provide a file which can be accessed using standard unix file operations. No need to specify version numbers of extra tools, which are prone to change (with all side-effects). > at24 driver is the lack of review and the lack of time to do the > review myself. But I really would like to have this driver upstream as > soon as possible if many people want to use it. Ah, this is great news! Then I will change my priorities, postpone the ADT7411-driver and test the EEPROM driver first when my time allows. > I'd rather have David's driver reviewed and merged (possibly tagged > EXPERIMENTAL) in 2.6.26. That's the best visibility it can get. That's for sure :) All the best, Wolfram -- Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
