[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <0cb00798-6510-4456-81fd-90131b97fdb8@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 18:44:50 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
"Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: "Marco Felsch" <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>,
"Richard Weinberger" <richard@....at>,
"Vignesh Raghavendra" <vigneshr@...com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Pengutronix Kernel Team" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"Heiner Kallweit" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"Jean Delvare" <jdelvare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mtd: devices: add AT24 eeprom support
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, at 17:47, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> brgl@...ev.pl wrote on Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:10:28 +0100:
>> Though if I'm being honest - I would prefer a single driver with
>> backwards compatibility. Have you estimated the effort it would take
>> to abstract both nvmem and mtd?
>
> Also agreed :-)
+1
I think this particularly makes sense in the light the other
at24 driver that was recently removed in commit 0113a99b8a75
("eeprom: Remove deprecated legacy eeprom driver").
The other problem with having two drivers is the need to
arbitrate between them, e.g. when you have a machine with
two at24 devices but want to use one of each for the two
subsystems. This does not really work with our DT probing
logic at the moment.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists