Hi Matt, On May 5, 6:48 pm, mattschinkel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matt offered to revert just the spi_init routine, and I said yes > > please do. > > Although I did offer this, I don't feel it is the best solution. Why > is the old init routine better? The new one saves code. >
Because I have already tested the old routine and have units in the field running the old routine. Besides the CAN device, there is a spi eeprom/mac address chip, as well as some unpublished code, all of which would need retesting. Matt, you may recall that you and I have debated your proposed changes to the spi module previously, so I was a little surprised to find them included under the subject heading of mssp2. My position hasn't changed. However, I am offering a compromise -- go ahead and keep your new routines, but don't mess with my original spi_init routine unless there are bugs or changes in the way bit-fields are defined, new compiler technology, etc. Seems quite fair and reasonable to me. By the way, I actually wonder if the new spi_init routine saves code, it might be less than you think, and it also consumes an extra stack level. William -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
