Hi Wolfram, On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:20:51 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > hopefully, I now have the time to finish at24 for good. Do you think it > can go through the next merge window?
Yes, it can and should. > > > As I said, my thought there is to make it safe for most > > > developers to just say "24c32" (or whatever) and have a > > > sane default ... while making sure that they *always* have > > > a way to set chips up to be readonly, or provide a better > > > page size (if they need better bulk write speeds). > > > > I agree on the principle. But the question remains: what is a sane > > default in this context? Using the smallest page size amongst commonly > > used EEPROM models? Using the smallest page size amongst known models? > > Using the smallest possible page size (that would be 1 byte for all > > EEPROM sizes as I understand it)? This 3rd possibility would probably > > be no better than defaulting to read-only, as the write performance > > would be so bad that every developer would specify custom platform data. > > Hmm, I tend to set all page_sizes to 1. It is a bit awkward to write > "double check those parameters" and then provide values you cannot be > absolutely sure of. Still, a minimal write-possibility may come in > handy, I think. I agree with Jean here, that it will be so slow, that > developers surely will create their own platform_devices. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
