On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:26:47AM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
+ adding Anatolij
On 15/12/15 10:17, Andrew Lunn wrote:
We should atleast attempt to pitch in this direction, and ask ifIs there a reason for this driver to be using the old style?
I can understand the issues with at24/at25 but does this driver also
suffer from such issues?
In order to keep backwards compatibility, we need the older file in
/sys. The only other option is to remove it and see if anybody
complains about us breaking the ABI.
somebody really cares if the location of the eeprom/nvmem file
matters to them?
I expect it does matter.
This driver does not implement the in kernel API for accessing the
EEPROM. That means all users are in user space. And if this file
moves, it seems very likely these user space users break.
--
Andrew