Dear Ben,
in message 1147960283.16780.263.camel@saruman.qstreams.net you wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Comments below.
Can you please stop top-posting and delete irrelevant parts of previous messages? Thanks.
No. Please read my posting again. I want to see this as compatible as possible with other commands that operate on devices connected to busses. We use "ide dev ...", so I want to see "i2c dev" here, too.
As mentioned before, in the long term all i2c related commands should become sub-commands to the new "i2c" command.
I understand and agree with your reasoning for moving all I2C commands to a separate tree. On the other hand, I'm very focused on your goal of keeping the interface small and ALWAYS maintaining backwards compatibility. If you'd like me to move all I2C commands to a separate
Yes, me too. But I don't see how adding a new "i2c dev" would disturb backward compatibility?
tree, it should be trivial, but makes for a bigger package. Please advise.
I'm not convinced that the new sheme will be significantly bigger. Yes, for the transition period (when we support both the old and the new sytax) code will be bigger. But me might even #ifdef the compatibility calls out....
I agree that at first glance this is unreadable. However, it is quite efficient and works well with macros. I played around with lots of
Macros may be evil.
#define I2C_DELIM /* or something like that */ #define CFG_I2C_MULTI_NOPROBES {0x11, 0x22, I2C_DELIM, 0x33, 0x44 ...}
That doesn't make it more readable. Also, how often are you going to use that macro in your code?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk