[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130120223907.GA8424@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:39:07 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
Anatolij Gustschin <agust@...x.de>,
Frodo Looijaard <frodol@....nl>,
Philip Edelbrock <phil@...roedge.com>,
Ben Gardner <bgardner@...tec.com>,
Ronny Meeus <Ronny.Meeus@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Creating an eeprom class
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 07:08:28PM +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> [plaintext and fixed address of David Brownell]
David passed away a year or so ago, so that's really not going to help :(
> Hi,
>
> Several of the eeprom drivers that live in drivers/misc/eeprom export
> a binary sysfs file 'eeprom'. If a userspace program or script wants
> to access this file, it needs to know the full path, for example:
>
> /sys/bus/spi/devices/spi32766.0/eeprom
>
> The problem with this approach is that it requires knowledge about the
> hardware configuration: is the eeprom on the SPI bus, the I2C bus, or
> maybe memory mapped?
>
> It would therefore be more interesting to have a bus-agnostic way to
> access this eeprom file, for example:
> /sys/class/eeprom/eeprom0/eeprom
>
> Maybe it'd be even better to use a more generic class name than
> 'eeprom', since there are several types of eeprom-like devices that
> you could export this way.
Does all of the existing "eeprom" devices use the same userspace
interface? If so, yes, having a "class" would make sense.
> Or should we rather hook the eeprom code into the mtd subsystem?
Why mtd?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists