Extract SPI exclusive device into shared crate

[eldruin]

trafficstars

Some concerns have been raised regarding the error handling in spi::blocking::ExclusiveDevice. I am not sure what the problem was, though. I think @GrantM11235 was the one to raise the concerns so maybe he can elaborate and then I can improve this description. Since that struct is just a helpful wrapper for a very specific situation, I propose we move it out of embedded-hal itself. For example into an embedded-hal-shared crate (or some other name, feel free to bikeshed).

We should note that we (probably) have the same problem in embedded-hal-async where there is also an ExclusiveDevice for SPI, so if we create such a crate, we should agree on what to put in there:

1. Only blocking ExclusiveDevice
2. blocking + async ExclusiveDevice
3. any of the above + RefCell-based sharing
4. any of the above + some mutex / critical section

We should also note that the great shared-bus crate also solves some of these problems so we might also put (some?) of this there.

cc: @Rahix

[rust-highfive]

r? @ryankurte

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Dirbaio]

:+1: to splitting, this way we can do breaking changes to these without disturbing the main crate.

or some other name, feel free to bikeshed

not sure on -suared, it's not only for shared buses (ExclusiveDevice isn't shared). Maybe embedded-hal-bus, embedded-hal-util, embedded-hal-adaters?

[GrantM11235]

My concerns with ExclusiveDevice are mostly theoretical, I just don't want us to be stuck with it forever (or until embedded-hal 2.0, whichever comes first :grin: ) in the event that we want to make breaking changes to it.

I like the name embedded-hal-adapters because it would also be a good place for other non-bus-related adapters, such as these blocking-to-async adapters.

[adamgreig]

Maybe embedded-hal-extras?

[eldruin]

In yesterday's weekly meeting we discussed a bit about this and I think I like the proposal of naming this embedded-hal-bus and put in there blocking and async ExclusiveDevice implementations. We could also add at least some RefCell-based or other bus/device connection implementations. I think that is enough stuff to grant its own crate, which would all be about buses, fitting its name nicely and keeping the focus tight. For additional stuff like async<->blocking adapters, we could also have an additional crate but we can discuss that in a separate issue.

[bors[bot]]

Build succeeded:

• ci-linux (1.54.0, x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
• ci-linux (stable, thumbv6m-none-eabi)
• ci-linux (stable, thumbv7m-none-eabi)
• ci-linux (stable, x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
• ci-linux-test (1.54.0, x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
• ci-linux-test (stable)
• fmt