> I find it confusing that I2C slave support is included even when > CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE is not set. I don't know if this was discussed before? I was thinking about it but was undecided between "size of code added unconditionally" and "ugly #ifdeffing the code". > I am considering adding ifdefs around the code to only include it when > CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE is set. Alternatively the code could be moved to a > separate module altogether. What do you think? Own module: Again, undecided. On the one hand it makes for a nice encapsulation, on the other hand there is overhead for having another module. I am very happy that the core code for slave support is so slim. Mabye #ifdef is a good start. I could do it as well, I don't mind.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
