Improve blocking i2c ergonomics #229
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Lumpio- in the community discord rightfully pointed out that our current blocking i2c struct takes a lot of unnamed parameters for initialisation. This replaces those unnamed parameter with a default-constructible struct, which allows either the builder pattern, or
Struct{fields, .. default()}initialisation to be used.I also renamed
retriestoattemptsbecause I think retries is ambiguous. I interpret it as "how many extra tries should we make", but the implementation is "how many attempts should we make.Finally, I moved the mapr reference requried for i2c1 to the end of the parameter list to the end, next to apb. This makes a lot more sense to me since most of our APIs takes those parameters last, and it's more compatible with i2c2