Hi Jean, > > Wouldn't the cleanest solution be > > > > "%d-%02x" for 7 bit > > "%d-%04x" for 10 bit? > > I'd rather use %03x for 10-bit then, for consistency. Yup, I realized this a few hours later, too. This would leave the possibility to add true 16-bit addressing of the next to be i2c standard ;) > internally), but unfortunately it would have had to be implemented in > the early days, not 8 years later. Yes, and hopefully we can live with this drawback well enough. > 0xa000 is not more intrusive than 0x1000, so if the majority - i.e. > you ;) - is in favor of this, that's fine with me. I'll send a patch > later today. You can already add my: Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
