> Any conclusion on this? I'm still suggesting that just treating 0x78 > and 0x90 as SCL stuck for either chip is the cleanest solution. I > think I could do something with a fall-through that repeats the check > with an if which wouldn't be too ugly. I tried as well and also came up with code which was not very readable while trying to be clever. So, I agree. Let's keep things simple and take your original approach. Can you resend the patch and update the comments to reflect which code is for which version? And include the other paragraph in your commit message? Thanks!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
