Hi Luca, On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 17:35:15 +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > On 03/02/20 14:27, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hmmm. It's not like you can do everything with libi2c so you should > > always use it. There are several things that can't be done with libi2c > > so you will have to do them "manually". Anything that doesn't fit in the > > SMBus specification basically. As a matter of fact, i2ctransfer does > > not use libi2c. > > > > Also, even when using libi2c, you still need to explicitly open the > > device node, set the slave address, and close the device when you are > > done (just seeing that's missing from the C example but it should be > > added). So the C example is still relevant even if you use libi2c. > > > > So I'm not sure swapping the sections makes that much sense. What would > > help on the other hand is to add a pointer to the C library section at > > the point of the C example where using the library would simplify the > > code. Would that work for you? > > In my opinion we should first document the recommended way. Assuming > libi2c is the recommended way for all uses it is capable of, that means > documenting libi2c first. > > Additionally, before documenting any of them I'd add a preamble similar > to: "The I2C device can be accessed from user space either using the > libi2c library or using low-level C functions directly. libi2c is more > high-level but has limited functionality.". This is so it's clear to the > reader from the beginning that there are two alternative approaches, > whose explanation will follow. Thank you for the suggested improvements, I agree they will make the documentation easier to read. I'll integrate these changes in v2. It might also make sense to add an example of the C library usage in libi2c(3). -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
