Hi,
On 05/22/15 15:44, Joakim Gebart wrote:
> I like the idea of getting rid of some redundant input validation. For
> example, if you are internally using spi_transfer_byte to provide
> spi_transfer_regs, then if the SPI device is valid for the first byte
> transferred, then it is probably going
Did the discussion about redundant parameter validations and DEVELHELP die?
I like the idea of getting rid of some redundant input validation. For
example, if you are internally using spi_transfer_byte to provide
spi_transfer_regs, then if the SPI device is valid for the first byte
transferred, th
Hey,
On 03/25/2015 11:12 AM, Hauke Petersen wrote:
in general I like the idea, one problem I see is however, that is not
always clear, to which level an API belongs (e.g. the GPIO API is
definitely used also by high-level application programmers, while still
belonging to the low-level peripheral
Hi Kaspar,
in general I like the idea, one problem I see is however, that is not
always clear, to which level an API belongs (e.g. the GPIO API is
definitely used also by high-level application programmers, while still
belonging to the low-level peripheral drivers...).
Cheers,
Hauke
On 25.0
Hey guys,
I've been thinking about how to find generally usable principles for
certain API aspects, like when to check a function's parameters for
validity.
An idea came to mind:
We could define some (two, three) levels of how low an API goes and
define (and document) consistent behaviour a
