One of the reasons for the NVMEM framework is to remove that duplicate code in the every driver. There was no framework/ABI which was guiding such old eeprom sysfs entry in first place, so I dont see an issue in removing it for good. Correct me if am wrong.>Another question which spring to mind is, do we want the eeprom to beI think these are questions for the framework maintainers.
>in /sys twice, the old and the new way? Backwards compatibility says
>the old must stay. Do we want a way to suppress the new? Or should we
>be going as far as refractoring the code into a core library, and two
>wrapper drivers, old and new?