Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:04:38 +0000 | From | Srinivas Kandagatla <> | Subject | Re: [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. >
| |