[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200420202310.GA95151@heinlein.lan.stwcx.xyz>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:23:10 -0500
From: Patrick Williams <patrick@...cx.xyz>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Patrick Williams <alpawi@...zon.com>,
Björn Ardö <bjorn.ardo@...s.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: slave-eeprom: support additional models
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:46:19PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 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.
>
I don't remember exactly which ones we needed (and I am no longer at
Amazon), but it was pretty trivial to add them all to the table so I
went ahead and did it. As long as we had one of the 2-byte addressable
EEPROMs, anything else necessary could be handleded as a small
out-of-tree patch.
--
Patrick Williams
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists