Now that i2c_add_driver() doesn't need the module owner to be set by
hand, we can delete it from the drivers. This patch catches all of the
drivers that I found in the current tree (if a driver sets the .owner by
hand, it's not a problem, just not needed.)
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
We should use the i2c_driver.driver's .name and .owner fields
instead of the i2c_driver's ones.
This patch updates the miscellaneaous i2c chip drivers.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Riffard <laurent.riffard@free.fr>
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Just about every i2c chip driver sets the I2C_DF_NOTIFY flag, so we
can simply make it the default and drop the flag. If any driver really
doesn't want to be notified when i2c adapters are added, that driver
can simply omit to set .attach_adapter. This approach is also more
robust as it prevents accidental NULL pointer dereferences.
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Use kzalloc instead of kmalloc+memset in all remaining i2c bus and
chip drivers.
Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@plexity.net>
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
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>
The only thing left in i2c-sensor.h are module parameter definition
macros. It's only an extension of what i2c.h offers, and this extension
is not sensors-specific. As a matter of fact, a few non-sensors drivers
use them. So we better merge them in i2c.h, and get rid of i2c-sensor.h
altogether.
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
i2c_probe and i2c_detect now do the exact same thing and operate on
the same data structure, so we can have everyone call i2c_probe.
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
We could refactor the error message 34 different i2c drivers print if
i2c_detach_client() fails in this function itself. Saves quite a few
lines of code. Documentation is updated to reflect that change.
Note that this patch should be applied after Rudolf Marek's w83792d
patches.
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Kill normal_isa in header files, documentation and all chip drivers, as
it is no more used.
normal_i2c could be renamed to normal, but I decided not to do so at the
moment, so as to limit the number of changes. This might be done later
as part of the i2c_probe/i2c_detect merge.
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Remove an unused local variable and change the subclient name.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardner <bgardner@wabtec.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Move the inline function kobj_to_i2c_client() from max6875.c to i2c.h.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardner <bgardner@wabtec.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
This is an update to the max6875 driver.
It no longer does any detection, so the address must be forced on module load.
It only makes available the user EEPROM (read-only).
This patch is based off 2.6.13-rc2-mm2.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardner <bgardner@wabtec.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
The 24RF08 corruption prevention in the eeprom and max6875 drivers wasn't
complete. For one thing, the additional quick write should happen as soon
as possible and unconditionally, while both drivers had error paths before.
For another, when a given chip is forced, the core does not emit a quick
write, so a second quick write would cause the corruption rather than
prevent it.
I plan to move the corruption prevention in the core in the long run, so
that individual drivers don't have to care anymore. But I need to merge
i2c_probe and i2c_detect before I do (work in progress).
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
After a careful code analysis on the new max6875 driver
(drivers/i2c/chips/max6875.c), I have come to the conclusion that this
driver may cause EEPROM corruptions if used on random systems.
The EEPROM part of the MAX6875 chip is accessed using rather uncommon
I2C sequences. What is seen by the MAX6875 as reads can be seen by a
standard EEPROM (24C02) as writes. If you check the detection method
used by the driver, you'll find that the first SMBus command it will
send on the bus is i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, 0x80, 0x40). For
the MAX6875 it makes an internal pointer point to a specific offset of
the EEPROM waiting for a subsequent read command, so it's not an actual
data write operation, but for a standard EEPROM, this instead means
writing value 0x40 to offset 0x80. Blame Philips and Intel for the
obscure protocol.
Since the MAX6875 and the standard, common 24C02 EEPROMs share two I2C
addresses (0x50 and 0x52), loading the max6875 driver on a system with
standard EEPROMs at either address will trigger a write on these
EEPROMs, which will lead to their corruption if they happen not to be
write protected. This kind of EEPROMs can be found on memory modules
(SPD), ethernet adapters (MAC address), laptops (proprietary data) and
displays (EDID/DDC). Most of these are hopefully write-protected, but
not all of them.
For this reason, I would recommend that the max6875 driver be
neutralized, in a way that nobody can corrupt his/her EEPROMs by just
loading the driver. This means either deleting the driver completely, or
not listing any default address for it. I'd like this to be done before
2.6.13-rc1 is released.
Additionally, the max6875 driver lacks the 24RF08 corruption preventer
present in the eeprom driver, which means that loading this driver in a
system with such a chip would corrupt it as well.
Here is a proposed quick patch addressing the issue, although I wouldn't
mind a complete removal if it makes everyone feel safer. I think Ben
has plans to replace this driver by a much simplified one anyway.
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
This patch adds support for the MAX6875/MAX6874 chips.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardner <bgardner@wabtec.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Greg Kroah-Hartman
Laurent Riffard
Jean Delvare
Deepak Saxena
bgardner@wabtec.com