On Sunday 26 October 2008 17:33, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > 06:47PM <prpplague> solar: i can see his points as being made from a > > > software persons vantage > > > 06:47PM <prpplague> solar: but those features are there for a reason > > > 06:48PM <prpplague> solar: i'll have to test it on monday > > > <solar> ok. I'll mail him back > > > 06:57PM <prpplague> solar: the primary reason for that information is so > > > can check the status of before and after, for instance, many times if a > > > registers is related a multifunction gpio, you can write to the > > > register, but the write will not take effect > > > 06:58PM <prpplague> solar: so you can see what the value is before, what > > > you intend it to be, and what the result was > > > 06:58PM <prpplague> solar: otherwise you will indeed have to run the > > > command three times > > > > I do see their reasoning, but read-write-read behavior means that > > applet is unusable for those who wants _only_ single_ write_ to occur. > > Whereas "single write" behavior can be scripted around > > so that you can do read-write-read if you want to. > > > > See? it's a question "do we restrict the options of the user needlessly?" > > > > > 06:59PM <prpplague> solar: maybe a flag can be used on compilation > > > 07:08PM <prpplague> solar: or is it that he was just questioning those > > > items at the momment and not changing them? > > > 07:10PM <prpplague> solar: that patch looks good > > > <solar> prpplague: but you still need the readback? > > > 07:19PM <prpplague> solar: yea i'd still prefer to have the readback > > > 07:19PM <prpplague> solar: buts that just me > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Ok so the sound of it to me. Your patch looks good but the readback > > > within the same execve is ideal. > > > > I dug out the last version and committed it to svn. > > > > I am not happy with it still. Reading is too talkative > > (polluted with irrelevant text) for scripting, > > and writing does readback unconditionally, which > > sometimes may be wrong thing to do. > > Thanks.
I changed it in svn to do single read or single write, and to not be talkative. If the desire to do read-write-read type accesses without having to run devmeme thrice, I guess fourth argument may be used, with form "rwr..." where r means read and w, well, you guess what. This way, "wr" and "rw" may be also used, which allows for "write and show whether it worked" and "show old value, then replace it" usage. If you need it, please send patches. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
