From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: 10-bit address support Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:22:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20111116162233.11441573@endymion.delvare> References: <20111110160739.540cda37@endymion.delvare> <20111111104335.GC2493@pengutronix.de> <20111116155610.6b02aab6@endymion.delvare> <20111116150449.GG2596@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111116150449.GG2596-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Linux I2C , "Jeffrey (Sheng-Hui) Chu" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.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 Thanks, -- Jean Delvare