Re: I2C slave support

[Wolfram Sang <wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]


> > 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 #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]