On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:23 AM <Andrei.Simion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> For those types of eeprom 24AA025E{48, 64} adjusting offset is not required (at24_get_offset_adj()).
> >> So, indeed, it is an entanglement in logic.
> >> To keep the implementation as it is:
> >> adjoff (which is a flag that indicates when to use the adjusting offset) needs to be 1 for old compatibles but for these new ones needs to be 0.
> >>
> >> I think that is enough not to break the existing users. What are your thoughts?
> >>
> >
> > Wait... is the adjoff field effectively a boolean? Why u8?
> >
>
> struct at24_data contains offset_adj which will get value calling at24_get_offset_adj()) if adjoff is true (1).
> Yes, adjoff needs to be treated as a boolean. I will change it in the next version.
>
No, wait. Why can't you just do:
AT24_CHIP_DATA(at24_data_24aa025e48, 48 / 8, AT24_FLAG_READONLY);
and avoid this whole new macro variant entirely?
Bart
