On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear k...@koi8.net, > > In message <pine.lnx.4.64ksi.0902121423570.21...@home-gw.koi8.net> you wrote: > > > > +#define I2C_SOFT_SEND_START(n) \ > > +static void send_start##n(void) \ > > +{ \ > > + I2C_SOFT_DECLARATIONS##n \ > > + I2C_DELAY##n; \ > > + I2C_SDA##n(1); \ > > + I2C_ACTIVE##n; \ > > + I2C_DELAY##n; \ > > + I2C_SCL##n(1); \ > > + I2C_DELAY##n; \ > > + I2C_SDA##n(0); \ > > + I2C_DELAY##n; \ > > } > > Sorry, but that's becoming an unreadable mess. I don't think I'm going > to ACK such code.
There is nothing unreadable there. The only alternative I see is to put several instances of the same functions with those "##n" expanded by hand instead of letting CPP do it. No problems, I can do that if you want me to. But it will not make code any more readable or smaller and the final result will be exactly the same, byte-to-byte. I can't see any problems with that code--it is in the same single file, not used anywhere else, cpp magic used is trivial ("##n" is replaced with literal "n" parameter in instances,) the functions look and feel almost like original ones--but sure, I can do CPP work myself and put several instances manually. Please let me know if you really want me to do this. --- ****************************************************************** * k...@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. * * Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. * ****************************************************************** _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot