17 May
2007
17 May
'07
2:26 p.m.
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:01:48PM -0400, Corey Osgood wrote:
spd_read_byte() is the correct name, so it should stay IMO. Is there a reason why all/most boards define this as a wrapper for smbus_read_byte()?
Could this be something else than smbus_read_byte() for some board? If no, maybe a #define is easier? Or move the wrapper to a central location?
okay, I guess this is the real question: is there ever any case where or reason why spd_read_byte doesn't just return smbus_read_byte?
Yes, I think so -- the Geode stuff and/or the 'fake SPD' method will need a different spd_read_byte() implementation. Please let's stick with it.
Uwe.