[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150508225831.63f2d895@endymion.delvare>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 22:58:31 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To: Randy Grunwell <rgrunwell@...ost.com>
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, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] i2c-tools: i2ctransfer: add new tool
Hi Randy,
On Fri, 8 May 2015 15:28:19 +0000, Randy Grunwell wrote:
> I'm curious why this would not be an extension of the i2c read and write commands? Would it not make sense to add a tier above "Block" (perhaps "Extended"), and use the same syntax?
>
> Forgive me if this is out of place - I'm quite new, both here and to Linux/C.
No problem, asking questions is fine.
The thing is that this isn't only a question of maximum length. It is
also a question of which kernel interface is being used (ioctl I2C_RDWR
instead of ioctl I2C_SMBUS.) Additionally, i2ctransfer supports any
combination of reading and writing, so in essence it doesn't extend a
specific existing tool, it extends all of them. And the command line
interface will be completely different, whichever we settle for. So it
seems quite obvious that a separate tool is the best way to implement
the feature, as Wolfram did.
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists