linux

iv/linux

History

Jean Delvare 4c9337da37 [PATCH] I2C: Centralize 24RF08 corruption prevention

The 24RF08 corruption would better be prevented at i2c-core level than
at chip driver level, for several reasons:
* The second quick write should happen as soon as possible after the
  first one, so as to limit the risk that another command is issued on
  the bus inbetween, causing the corruption.
* As a matter of fact, the protection code at driver level was reworked
  at least three times already, which proves how hard it is to get it
  right there, while it's straightforward at i2c-core level.
* It's easy to add a new driver that would need the protection, and
  forget to add it. This did happen already.
* As additional probing addresses can be passed to most i2c chip drivers
  as module parameters, virtually every i2c chip driver would need the
  protection if we want to be really safe.
* Why duplicate code when we can easily avoid it?

Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

2005-09-05 09:14:25 -07:00

busses

[PATCH] I2C: Sensors mailing list has moved

2005-06-21 21:52:01 -07:00

chips

[PATCH] I2C: max6875 documentation cleanup

2005-09-05 09:14:05 -07:00

dev-interface

[PATCH] I2C: Clarify the usage of i2c-dev.h

2005-07-11 14:10:37 -07:00

functionality

[PATCH] I2C: fix typo in documentation