On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 12:19:05AM +0530, Ayush Singh wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/misc/mikrobus/Kconfig b/drivers/misc/mikrobus/Kconfig new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..f0770006b4fe --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/misc/mikrobus/Kconfig @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +menuconfig MIKROBUS
- tristate "Module for instantiating devices on mikroBUS ports"
- depends on GPIOLIB
- depends on W1
- depends on W1_MASTER_GPIO
- help
This option enables the mikroBUS driver. mikroBUS is an add-onboard socket standard that offers maximum expandability withthe smallest number of pins. The mikroBUS driver instantiatesdevices on a mikroBUS port described by identifying data presentin an add-on board resident EEPROM, more details on the mikroBUSdriver support and discussion can be found in this eLinux wiki :elinux.org/Mikrobus
I think this is a fallacy. I have boards that support Mikrobus - some of the SolidRun products do. I have several Mikrobus "click" boards.
This help text seems to imply that Mikrobus click boards include an EEPROM that identify them, hence you make the support for mikroBUS depend on it. No, this is not the case - the click boards do not contain a 1-wire EEPROM.
Please fetch a copy of the official Mikrobus specification which is available here:
https://download.mikroe.com/documents/standards/mikrobus/mikrobus-standard-s...
and rather than creating something that is implementation specific but appears to be generic, create something that is generic with implementation specific extensions.
You'll find if you search that document, no mention is made of an "eprom". "identification" is also not found. "one wire", "onewire", "1-wire", "1wire" are also not found.
What I'm concerned about is if we create this "Mikrobus" subsystem which appears to be dependent on one-wire EEPROMs somewhere in the system, and then end up with a load of drivers for various mikroBUS boards, what about cases where there is no one-wire EEPROM?