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
