why not new-style I2C eeprom driver?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: why not new-style I2C eeprom driver?
From: <srinivas.ramana@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:33:31 +0530
Thread-index: Ackh8gVLudW8cDtIRLqb0CroWm1Z6QAAER0g
Thread-topic: why not new-style I2C eeprom driver?

Hi All,

Would like to know why the I2C eeprom driver is not upgraded to new-style? Why is that some devices are still following legacy I2C driver style.

If i want to write an I2C driver, is there any dependency on the device that makes me to write only legacy driver?

another doubt:

When i am wrting the I2C driver, how can i know the name of the device be known before hand to include in i2c_device_id structure? As far as i know this name should match during the bus enumeration for matching devices.

For example, how do i know the name of the eeprom device.

Actually, i am trying to rewrite the I2C eeprom driver in new-style using linux kernel device model for my understanding.

Thanks & Regards,

-- Srinivas R

Follow-Ups:
- Re: why not new-style I2C eeprom driver?
  - From: Wolfram Sang

Prev by Date: How to know the maximum memory pages that can be allocated?
Next by Date: 32 bit and 64 bit---- doubt
Previous by thread: How to know the maximum memory pages that can be allocated?
Next by thread: Re: why not new-style I2C eeprom driver?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Newbies FAQ] [Kernel List] [Site Home] [IETF Annouce] [Git] [Networking] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Rubini] [Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Networking] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux ACPI] [DDR & Rambus] [UNIX Filesystems] [Linux Resources]