On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:01:48PM -0400, Corey Osgood wrote: > > spd_read_byte() is the correct name, so it should stay IMO. Is there a > > reason why all/most boards define this as a wrapper for smbus_read_byte()? > > > > Could this be something else than smbus_read_byte() for some board? > > If no, maybe a #define is easier? Or move the wrapper to a central > > location? > > okay, I guess this is the real question: is there ever any case where or > reason why spd_read_byte doesn't just return smbus_read_byte?
Yes, I think so -- the Geode stuff and/or the 'fake SPD' method will need a different spd_read_byte() implementation. Please let's stick with it. Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
