• I think maybe the best solution would be to totally rename the SPI_COUNT/etc. IIRC they've already been renamed once to avoid a conflict with some other HAL, so should probably be prefixed JS_SPI_COUNT or something.

    But as I'd said previously, increasing the hardware SPI count for nRF52 isn't something I'm that interested in doing unless we can handle the conflict with I2C in a way that alerts the user to a problem - especially as software SPI is really quite and you can have as many instances as you want.

    If we're doing that, expanding I2C to allow I2C2 is probably an idea as well, but then you have the problem of what happens when someone tries to use I2C1 and SPI1 and it fails... Should it just silently use I2C2 instead?


Avatar for Gordon @Gordon started