lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/6] nvmem: Add backwards compatibility support for older EEPROM drivers.


On 11/12/15 13:03, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:05:07PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Older drivers made an 'eeprom' file available in the /sys device
>> directory. Have the NVMEM core provide this to retain backwards
>> compatibility.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
>> ---
>> drivers/nvmem/Kconfig | 7 ++++
>> drivers/nvmem/core.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> include/linux/nvmem-provider.h | 10 ++++++
>> 3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig b/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig
>> index bc4ea585b42e..b4e79ba7d502 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/Kconfig
>> @@ -13,6 +13,13 @@ menuconfig NVMEM
>> If unsure, say no.
>>
>> if NVMEM
>> +config NVMEM_COMPAT
>> + bool "Enable /sys compatibility with old eeprom drivers"
>> + help
>> + Older EEPROM drivers, such as AT24, AT25, provide access to
>> + the eeprom via a file called "eeprom" in /sys under the
>> + device node. Enabling this option makes the NVMEM core
>> + provide this file to retain backwards compatibility
>
> I don't like this being a Kconfig option TBH. In most cases, when I read
> "retain backwards compatibility" in Kconfig help texts, I keep the
> option activated because I don't know the details when exactly it is
> safe to disable it. Plus, we have too many Kconfig symbols already.
>
+1 for not adding new Kconfig here.


> I suggest to add this flag to nvmem_config and let the old eeprom
> drivers always set this flag because they need to provide this file for
> some more time, if not forever. New drivers using the nvmem_layer will
> probably not want to set this.

yes, thats my view to, we should move the flag to nvmem_config and let
nvmem_register() do what it wants with it, this would avoid adding new
api too.
>
> BTW how does this NVMEM framework relate to the memory_accessor
> framework. Can it be used to replace it? I think we should keep the
> number of eeprom interfaces at a sane level, preferably 1 ;)

Non DT users can still get access to nvmem by passing nvmem provider
name to nvmem_device_get(), this should be able to replace the need of
memory_accessor.

--srini


>
> Also adding Pantelis to CC who also submitted at24 NVMEM support a while
> ago.
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-15 11:41    [W:1.312 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site