On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:05:07PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > Older drivers made an 'eeprom' file available in the /sys device > directory. Have the NVMEM core provide this to retain backwards > compatibility. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/nvmem/Kconfig | 7 ++++ > drivers/nvmem/core.c | 75 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > include/linux/nvmem-provider.h | 10 ++++++ > 3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig b/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig > index bc4ea585b42e..b4e79ba7d502 100644 > --- a/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig > @@ -13,6 +13,13 @@ menuconfig NVMEM > If unsure, say no. > > if NVMEM > +config NVMEM_COMPAT > + bool "Enable /sys compatibility with old eeprom drivers" > + help > + Older EEPROM drivers, such as AT24, AT25, provide access to > + the eeprom via a file called "eeprom" in /sys under the > + device node. Enabling this option makes the NVMEM core > + provide this file to retain backwards compatibility
I don't like this being a Kconfig option TBH. In most cases, when I read "retain backwards compatibility" in Kconfig help texts, I keep the option activated because I don't know the details when exactly it is safe to disable it. Plus, we have too many Kconfig symbols already. I suggest to add this flag to nvmem_config and let the old eeprom drivers always set this flag because they need to provide this file for some more time, if not forever. New drivers using the nvmem_layer will probably not want to set this. BTW how does this NVMEM framework relate to the memory_accessor framework. Can it be used to replace it? I think we should keep the number of eeprom interfaces at a sane level, preferably 1 ;) Also adding Pantelis to CC who also submitted at24 NVMEM support a while ago.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
