On 25/8/21 12:05 am, Stephen Clark wrote: > This approach was also used in bsps/arm/xilinx-zynq/include/bsp/i2c.h. I kept > it specifically for consistency; I assumed it was the standard approach, but > your response makes me think it's not.
I am also not sure and why I asked :) > Is there a case to be made for breaking the register functions in both i2c.h > files out into their own c files? I do not know. There can be a tendency to place things into line functions that do not need to be. It saves work by not need to touch the build system. If the code is being moved should it be moved to a C file? This is the reason I raised this. I am happy to follow what ever Joel thinks. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
