From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [patch 2.6.27-rc7] i2c: smbalert# support Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:58:21 -0800 Message-ID: <200811211858.22159.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200804161434.54335.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> <200811201456.36551.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Trent Piepho Cc: Jean Delvare , Linux I2C , lm-sensors-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Friday 21 November 2008, Trent Piepho wrote: > So yes, hardware keeps getting better. =A0But you can't say, "I have = twice the > RAM so I can make my software twice as bloated as come out even." Bec= ause we > also except to be able to do more with cheaper, lower power hardware. Which wasn't my point at all; neither was even closely related: > > The real counter-argument is that memory isn't *that* tight, especi= ally > > since the hardware capacity is growing. If you're keen on saving a hundred bytes, you could probably get it by removing some needless strings or moving code to init/exit sections ... and in fact, get a lot more than that. Without any loss of functionality. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:58:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [patch 2.6.27-rc7] i2c: smbalert# support Message-Id: <200811211858.22159.david-b@pacbell.net> List-Id: References: <200804161434.54335.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> <200811201456.36551.david-b@pacbell.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Trent Piepho Cc: Jean Delvare , Linux I2C , lm-sensors-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org On Friday 21 November 2008, Trent Piepho wrote: > So yes, hardware keeps getting better. =A0But you can't say, "I have twic= e the > RAM so I can make my software twice as bloated as come out even." Because= we > also except to be able to do more with cheaper, lower power hardware. Which wasn't my point at all; neither was even closely related: > > The real counter-argument is that memory isn't *that* tight, especially > > since the hardware capacity is growing. If you're keen on saving a hundred bytes, you could probably get it by removing some needless strings or moving code to init/exit sections ... and in fact, get a lot more than that. Without any loss of functionality. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors