Re: 10-bit address support

[Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:04:49 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> > > Wouldn't the cleanest solution be
> > > 
> > > "%d-%02x" for 7 bit
> > > "%d-%04x" for 10 bit?
> > 
> > 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
> ;)

Given the fiasco 10-bit address support was, I doubt we'll see any
attempt to further extend the address space. The protocol penalty of
10-bit addressing is heavy and 7-bit addresses are often sufficient in
practice. Where they are not, designers have resorted to using muxes
and switches rather than 10-bit addresses.

> > 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 <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare