Hi Wolfram, On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:21:54 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > some more comments while working on the driver:
I concur with everything, except: > > Oh, BTW, can't you compute this value yourself from byte_len and (flags > > & AT24_EE_ADDR2)? I think so... > > There is at least one exception already (24c00) which covers eight > addresses but actually just needs one. This spoils the calculation of > i2c_addr_mask (and if there is one case, there will be others) :( I > agree, that num_addresses might be more apropriate than i2c_addr_mask. Not really. The 24C00 might answer to 8 I2C addresses, but how do you care? You only need one address to access the whole data range. Registering the extra clients is a waste of time and memory, so just don't do it. Problem solved :) -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
