On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:03:12PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: [...] > OK. So we just need to prevent people from blindly copying this. > > Wouldn't adding a big comment about why this is enough for this platform > and why anything more sophisticated would be just overengineering in this > case be enough? That'd be sugarcoating. I don't think this is a good idea at all and using a properly encapsulated driver with proper shared API to access shared registers wouldn't be overengineering in my opinion. It would in fact be good engineering. > This driver is already a lot better than previous one, because as opposed > to the old one, it gives synchronization that is technically correct. Not > even saying about a lot of other things fixed, like multiplatform- > awareness, OF support, coding style, proper handling of dividers, etc., > etc. It would be really bad if all this was put to waste... I certainly wouldn't want any of this going to waste, and quite frankly letting you get away with just the comment is already more compromise than I really like. The TI drivers used to have a similar problem and I required them to come up with a good solution. It'd be fair to require the same of you. But maybe I'm getting soft. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpkGoD8FAnm5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
