+Adding Maxime in the loop
On 16/08/15 16:37, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>Another question which spring to mind is, do we want the eeprom to be
>in /sys twice, the old and the new way? Backwards compatibility says
>the old must stay. Do we want a way to suppress the new? Or should we
>be going as far as refractoring the code into a core library, and two
>wrapper drivers, old and new?
I think these are questions for the framework maintainers.
One of the reasons for the NVMEM framework is to remove that duplicate
code in the every driver. There was no framework/ABI which was guiding
such old eeprom sysfs entry in first place, so I dont see an issue in
removing it for good. Correct me if am wrong.
IMHO, its better to move on with nvmem for good reasons, rather than
having two sysfs binary files.
--srini
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
