On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:04:49 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > 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 > ;) Given the fiasco 10-bit address support was, I doubt we'll see any attempt to further extend the address space. The protocol penalty of 10-bit addressing is heavy and 7-bit addresses are often sufficient in practice. Where they are not, designers have resorted to using muxes and switches rather than 10-bit addresses. > > 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> Thanks, -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
