linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: slave-eeprom: support additional models

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200420164619.GE3721@ninjato>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:46:19 +0200
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     Patrick Williams <alpawi@...zon.com>
Cc:     Björn Ardö <bjorn.ardo@...s.com>,
        Patrick Williams <patrick@...cx.xyz>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: slave-eeprom: support additional models

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Patrick Williams wrote:
> Add support for emulating the following EEPROMs:
>     * 24c01  - 1024 bit
>     * 24c128 - 128k bit
>     * 24c256 - 256k bit
>     * 24c512 - 512k bit
> 
> The flag bits in the device id were shifted up 1 bit to make
> room for saving the 24c512's size.  24c512 uses the full 16-bit
> address space of a 2-byte addressable EEPROM.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Williams <alpawi@...zon.com>

Do you really need them or is it just nice to have?

I am undecided. I definately don't want all the EEPROM types which
exist, but the full 16 bit address range makes sense...

More opinions welcome.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)