[i2c] [PATCH v3] New-style I2C and SMBus EEPROM driver (with device_ids)
khali at linux-fr.org
Wed Jun 11 11:09:21 CEST 2008
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:33:25 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > AT24_FLAG_24C00 (doesn't really matter), and AT24C01 needs 128
> > > addresses?? (please, someone, prove me wrong)
> > Why do you think so? My personal guess is that they simply forgot to
> > mention the address in the datasheet. A chip responding to all
> > addresses would prevent any other chip from being connected to the bus,
> > that's impractical enough to be reasonably certain that no manufacturer
> > did this.
> No I2C-address is mentioned in the whole datasheet; all the timing
> diagrams put the memory offset to the place where one would expect the
> I2C-address; the pins usually named A0-A2 are not connected...
Ooch. I didn't notice the timing diagrams... OMG.
> Maybe it once made the chip one cent cheaper, I dunno, but I wouldn't be
> that surprised :) Doesn't really matter for at24, luckily.
Indeed. If this chip is the crazy thing you suspect (and I now fear you
are correct), it's not compatible with the other EEPROMs, so we don't
really care about it.
More information about the i2c