[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150508143826.GA1513@katana>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 16:38:26 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] i2c-tools: i2ctransfer: add new tool
> Having slept over it, I came up with a 3rd proposal:
>
> # i2ctransfer 0 w0x11@...0 0xc0 0xbd= r1@...1
>
> That is, combining the slave address, direction and length into a
> single parameter. The advantage is that this is all more explicit and
> the risk of mixing up values is close to zero. Whether it is more or
> less readable than the previous proposals is probably a matter of
> taste. Also I suspect it would make the parsing and state machine more
> simple, but that's only a nice side effect.
>
> Wolfram (and others), please tell me what you think. I am not trying to
> force my views here, just suggesting alternatives for your
> consideration.
I liked your proposal, so thanks for this input. I agree that the risk
of mixing something up is high, I was okay with the printout of the
messages to be sent, but a better syntax is very welcome, too. I need to
think about the flags a little bit, though. Although this isn't
implemented yet, PEC and 10-bit flags might be added in the future?
Handling R/W as "just another" flag made this option extremly simple.
But we probably can work something out.
So much for the quick response, I'll have a closer look later.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists