> > 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.
>
> I gave a try to the separate module approach and I have to agree that
> it seems overkill given the small amount of code.
OK, thanks for trying!
> Something like this?
Yes, pretty much what I had in mind. One issue, though:
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE)
> enum i2c_slave_event {
> I2C_SLAVE_REQ_READ_START,
> I2C_SLAVE_REQ_READ_END,
> @@ -263,6 +266,7 @@ static inline int i2c_slave_event(struct
> {
> return client->slave_cb(client, event, val);
> }
> +#endif
This should fail because bus drivers need those enums for their slave
backend. Try building i2c-sh_mobile which builds with an x86 toolchain
as well.
* Either we leave this included, so bus drivers don't need any ifdeffery
or
* we mandate that bus drivers also use the ifedeffery. Then, we could
also mask out the (un)reg_slave callbacks in struct i2c_adapter
What do you think?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
