Wolfgang,
No, because this will always be mutually exclusie. I thinkt hat, for a transition period and on sytems that can afford the memory footprint, both the old and the new syntac should be available at the same time (just like we still support the $(variable) and the ${variable} formats in parallel - but $(var) will be dropped RSN).
OK
This macro (I forgot to assign a value, by the way) is only used in two commands - the probing function and the one that changes buses (it moves a pointer to the correct point in the list). You'll notice that I have both compile time and run time checks in place that verify that the list
Yes, but this and the fact that multiple instances of the macro are used means that we add more than needed to the memory footprint.
is properly formed, and hopefully enough comments to show how to create the list. I'm very open to alternative suggestions, other than 'no'.
Use arrays, please.
Sorry, I mis-stated this. The list defined by the macro is only stored in one place - the 1-D array called 'i2c_no_probes'. Manipulation is purely by pointers, so this isn't a memory hog. I would much prefer to use a 2-D array, but the C language doesn't allow the initialization of static 2-D arrays with an arbitrary number of columns (representing entries in the list). I can easily define:
#define CFG_I2C_NUM_BUSES 2 #define CFG_I2C_MULTI_NOPROBES {{0x1, 0x2, 0x3}, {0xa, 0xb}}
but the following won't compile:
static uchar [CFG_I2C_NUM_BUSES][] = CFG_I2C_MULTI_NOPROBES;
I could add yet another #define, perhaps #define CFG_I2C_MAX_NOPROBES 3
static uchar [CFG_I2C_NUM_BUSES][CFG_I2C_MAX_NOPROBES] = CFG_I2C_MULTI_NOPROBES;
which will work, but isn't very flexible and adds yet another thing the user must think about. Of course, we could #define a 1-D array for each bus, but as you can see this grows ungainly. My approach of a single delimited 1-D array has the advantage of being simple, and allows an arbitrary number of controllers and no-probes in each one, while only requiring a single #define CFG.
Sorry if this is overly verbose.
regards, Ben