On Sat, 07 May 2011 22:33:13 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
making the printing independent from probing is of course the right thing to do. can we rename the printlock field of the struct or at least change the comment indicating that is does not only _lock_ printing but chip status printing? or do you want to use the field for getting/printing generic lock layout data for each chip later? i would think having a method to _additionally_ print out the status bits would be useful in that case anyway?
the same applies to:
msg_cdbg("Chip status register: Status Register Write Disable " "(SRWD) is %sset\n", (status& (1<< 7)) ? "" : "not ");
in a25.c (only).
Hm yes. I was not sure whether moving a single line to a separate function is a good idea or not.
well... spi_prettyprint_status_register_atmel_at25_srpl ;)