Should the Spi new function take ownership of the spi pins? about rp-hal HOT 2 CLOSED

The stm32f1xx-hal provides NoMosi and NoMiso filler types which I find quite handy: https://docs.rs/stm32f1xx-hal/0.7.0/stm32f1xx_hal/spi/struct.NoMosi.html

Would that be something you'd like to see here as well?

from rp-hal.

Yeah, it probably should - though we need to handle the case where the user doesn't want mosi (for a read-only device) or miso (for a write-only device).
Also, thanks for the reminder that I should update the i2c doc example to use into_mode(), since it's even cleaner when you do

let mut i2c = I2C::i2c1(
    peripherals.I2C1,
    pins.gpio18.into_mode(),
    pins.gpio19.into_mode(),
    400.kHz(),
    &mut peripherals.RESETS,
    125_000_000.Hz(),

I wanted the main example to do things explicitly but for the doc example being concise is more important.

from rp-hal.