Dear Timur Tabi,
In message 1222959963-5697-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com you wrote:
All implementations of the functions i2c_reg_read() and i2c_reg_write() are identical. We can save space and simplify the code by converting these functions into inlines and putting them in i2c.h.
Actually they are not identical:
+++ b/cpu/arm926ejs/davinci/i2c.c @@ -331,21 +331,4 @@ int i2c_write(u_int8_t chip, u_int32_t addr, int alen, u_int8_t *buf, int len)
...
-u_int8_t i2c_reg_read(u_int8_t chip, u_int8_t reg) -{
- u_int8_t tmp;
- i2c_read(chip, reg, 1, &tmp, 1);
- return(tmp);
-}
...
-void i2c_reg_write(u_int8_t chip, u_int8_t reg, u_int8_t val) -{
- u_int8_t tmp;
- i2c_write(chip, reg, 1, &tmp, 1);
-}
#endif /* CONFIG_DRIVER_DAVINCI_I2C */ diff --git a/cpu/blackfin/i2c.c b/cpu/blackfin/i2c.c index 60f03d4..2a3e223 100644 --- a/cpu/blackfin/i2c.c +++ b/cpu/blackfin/i2c.c @@ -425,20 +425,4 @@ int i2c_write(uchar chip, uint addr, int alen, uchar * buffer, int len)
...
-uchar i2c_reg_read(uchar chip, uchar reg) -{
- uchar buf;
- PRINTD("i2c_reg_read: chip=0x%02x, reg=0x%02x\n", chip, reg);
- i2c_read(chip, reg, 0, &buf, 1);
- return (buf);
-}
-void i2c_reg_write(uchar chip, uchar reg, uchar val) -{
- PRINTD("i2c_reg_write: chip=0x%02x, reg=0x%02x, val=0x%02x\n", chip,
reg, val);- i2c_write(chip, reg, 0, &val, 1);
-}
This does not exactly look identical to me.
And when you claim "We can save space" - which sort of space are you talking about? Dos this reduce the memory footprint of the code?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk