Hi Joep, On Dec 30, 12:55 pm, Joep Suijs <[email protected]> wrote: > > The point is it does work with i2c_software, which could give the > impression the problem is in i2c_hardware. I2c_software is > straight-forward and easier to modify without introducting bugs than > i2c_hardware. So maybe we should introduce a 'safe mode' that block > this behavior in i2c_software too. This way we avoid we build > libraries that do work with i2c_software but not with i2c_hardware > without the need to test both. >
Should we modify thei2c_software library, when it is working fine like it is? In my view, it is the picmicro I2C master-mode controller hardware itself, that is complicated and/or confusing. And so as a result, the i2c_hardware library will always need to be tested separately from the i2c_software library. What advantage does i2c_hardware library have over the i2c_software library? If there isn't any advantage, we might consider dropping it, or replacing with a stub that includes i2c_software. William -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
