> > >I think you'd better drop the pagesize property altogether, and > > >instead make the compatible string more specific (if needed at > > >all. are there any 'catalyst,24c32' chips with pagesize != 32?) > > > > Microchip makes a 24c32 part that looks pretty similar to the > > catalyst part, but Microchip's has a 64-byte page size compared to > > Catalyst's 32. > > Well, when using microchip part, the compatible string would be > "microchip,24c32", correct? Then we have all the information > already, no need for the pagesize.
Hmm, there are myriads of I2C eeproms out there, this table would be enourmous. Even worse, I seem to recall that I had once seen a manufacturer increasing the page-size from one charge to the next without changing the part-number, so I got this feeling "you can't map pagesize to manufacturer/type" which I still have. Sadly, this was long ago, so I can't proof it right now. Will try to dig up some datasheets when in the office tomorrow. In general, I2C EEPROMs are really a mess, the basic access method is the same, but except that everything else is possible :) Thus, this approach. Thus, this approach. Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
