Re: I2C slave support

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 734 bytes --]


> I find it confusing that I2C slave support is included even when
> CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE is not set. I don't know if this was discussed before?

I was thinking about it but was undecided between "size of code added
unconditionally" and "ugly #ifdeffing the code".

> I am considering adding ifdefs around the code to only include it when
> CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE is set. Alternatively the code could be moved to a
> separate module altogether. What do you think?

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.

Mabye #ifdef is a good start. I could do it as well, I don't mind.


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