From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: 10-bit address support Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:04:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20111116150449.GG2596@pengutronix.de> References: <20111110160739.540cda37@endymion.delvare> <20111111104335.GC2493@pengutronix.de> <20111116155610.6b02aab6@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5L6AZ1aJH5mDrqCQ" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111116155610.6b02aab6-R0o5gVi9kd7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Linux I2C , "Jeffrey (Sheng-Hui) Chu" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --5L6AZ1aJH5mDrqCQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jean, > > Wouldn't the cleanest solution be > >=20 > > "%d-%02x" for 7 bit > > "%d-%04x" for 10 bit? >=20 > I'd rather use %03x for 10-bit then, for consistency. Yup, I realized this a few hours later, too. This would leave the possibility to add true 16-bit addressing of the next to be i2c standard ;) > internally), but unfortunately it would have had to be implemented in > the early days, not 8 years later. Yes, and hopefully we can live with this drawback well enough. > 0xa000 is not more intrusive than 0x1000, so if the majority - i.e. > you ;) - is in favor of this, that's fine with me. I'll send a patch > later today. You can already add my: Acked-by: Wolfram Sang --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --5L6AZ1aJH5mDrqCQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk7D0REACgkQD27XaX1/VRvoyACff2gchWyHtv6WeG4kHB9E8z5a yAMAn04llnbBrxHlb5aY3dmlxbtsxAQC =sOln -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5L6AZ1aJH5mDrqCQ--