[i2c] [PATCH v3] New-style I2C and SMBus EEPROM driver (with device_ids)

[Wolfram Sang]

Hi Jean,

hopefully, I now have the time to finish at24 for good. Do you think it
can go through the next merge window?

> > 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.

All the best,

   Wolfram

-- 
  Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de
 Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/attachments/20080701/19be6b8c/attachment.bin