[Arm-netbook] identification EEPROM: writable or not?

[Scott Sullivan]

On 11/05/2013 03:43 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> there is also the question of read-only eeproms. these exist and may
>>> be used  for various reasons in both end-user- and engineering-type
>>> boards. would  having a read-only eeprom make an otherwise
>>> engineering board an end-user  product?
>> Yes.  It would mean the buyer does not own their device.
>
> IIUC this EEPROM only holds data which the kernel can elect to use, but
> which it can also just ignore (and use some other data from a µSD card
> instead).  So making it unwritable doesn't mean the owner is screwed.
>
>
>          Stefan

I do not feel it is fair to exclude proprietary vendors from a open 
standard by insisting their hardware be open. That will cripple adoption 
in this current OEM climate and severely reduce the chances of making 
the desired change in the market.

What we can do is encourage participants to be open and endorse products 
that adopt open hardware philosophies. We need real life examples to 
compel people to switch. Once the EMOA-68 standard is adopted by both 
proprietary and open hardware vendors, being fully open and 'respects 
your freedom' becomes a selling point in an apples to apples comparison. 
We can not get folks to understand 'not owning your' device until there 
is such a direct comparison. We need to bring these vendors on to even 
ground with us.

Options 'C' is the best course forward for a healthy ecosystem with 
competition. Do not artificially restrict the participants be insisting 
on a philosophy, that defeats the point of an 'open' standard.

-- 
Scott Sullivan