On Monday 14 April 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > To support the X24645, it would be necessary to raise AT24_MAX_CLIENTS > > > to 32 (what a beast!). Then again, most eeproms will just need one > > > client, so this would cause quite some overhead in most use-cases. > > > Maybe it pays off to hande this dynamically? > > > > As eeproms are normally slow things anyway, would it be a big > > performance impact? > > I agree that going dynamic makes sense. Not that it has anything to do > with the speed of EEPROMs though - the memory allocation will be done > at device initialization time, and after that dynamic or not should > perform just the same.
Right. X24645 looks a bit more bizarre than any EEPROMs I had come across; it'll need some changes in chip config data. You'd think they'd just use two byte addressing! I guess doing it that way lets them use SMBus-only hosts. Wolfram's at24_ee_address() cleanup looked fine. The header looks OK, but I'd add a comment *encouraging* folk to double check those params for their chips, in particular to check the page size. It's OK if their chip has a bigger page size than those "defaults" although they could get faster write performance by listing the right value ... but it's NOT OK if their chip has a smaller write size than what's listed there, they'll lose data. I'll be glad to see this go upstream. :) - Dave _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
