From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
To: Randy Grunwell <rgrunwell@zboost.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] i2c-tools: i2ctransfer: add new tool
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 22:58:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150508225831.63f2d895@endymion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR05MB258449826F87ED8A0B25A6BC4DE0@BLUPR05MB258.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Randy,
On Fri, 8 May 2015 15:28:19 +0000, Randy Grunwell wrote:
> I'm curious why this would not be an extension of the i2c read and write commands? Would it not make sense to add a tier above "Block" (perhaps "Extended"), and use the same syntax?
>
> Forgive me if this is out of place - I'm quite new, both here and to Linux/C.
No problem, asking questions is fine.
The thing is that this isn't only a question of maximum length. It is
also a question of which kernel interface is being used (ioctl I2C_RDWR
instead of ioctl I2C_SMBUS.) Additionally, i2ctransfer supports any
combination of reading and writing, so in essence it doesn't extend a
specific existing tool, it extends all of them. And the command line
interface will be completely different, whichever we settle for. So it
seems quite obvious that a separate tool is the best way to implement
the feature, as Wolfram did.
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-08 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-27 16:16 [RFC] i2c-tools: i2ctransfer: add new tool Wolfram Sang
2015-04-20 17:36 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-04-21 5:25 ` Jean Delvare
2015-04-21 7:06 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-05-07 20:08 ` Jean Delvare
2015-05-08 8:54 ` Jean Delvare
2015-05-08 14:38 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-05-08 21:40 ` Jean Delvare
2015-05-09 6:50 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-05-08 15:28 ` Randy Grunwell
2015-05-08 18:28 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-05-08 20:58 ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2015-05-09 7:09 ` Wolfram Sang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150508225831.63f2d895@endymion.delvare \
--to=jdelvare@suse.de \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=rgrunwell@zboost.com \
--cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).