Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Perhaps
>
> void lcd_puts(int x, int y, const char* text);
> void lcd_putsf(int x, int y, const char* fmt, ...);
> void lcd_putsf_ex(int x, int y, int xcrop, int style, bool scrolled,
> const char* fmt, ...);

Having both lcd_puts and lcd_putsf gives no advantage, on arm anyway. A call to lcd_putsf() with only the fmt parameter produces identical code as a call to lcd_puts():

void argtest(void)
{
    lcd_puts(0, 0, "foo");
    lcd_putsf(0, 0, "foo");
}

000040c4 <argtest>:
    40c4: e92d4010 push {r4, lr}
    40c8: e59f4024 ldr r4, [pc, #36] ; 40f4 <argtest+0x30>
    40cc: e3a00000 mov r0, #0
    40d0: e1a01000 mov r1, r0
    40d4: e1a02004 mov r2, r4
    40d8: eb0180ee bl 64498 <lcd_puts>
    40dc: e3a00000 mov r0, #0
    40e0: e1a01000 mov r1, r0
    40e4: e1a02004 mov r2, r4
    40e8: eb0180f2 bl 644b8 <lcd_putsf>
    40ec: e8bd4010 pop {r4, lr}
    40f0: e12fff1e bx lr
    40f4: 0009c098 .word 0x0009c098

However there is certainly a point in not requiring all arguments all the time, so two functions make sense. Since they are vararg enabled, I'd say a more suitable name than lcd_puts is lcd_printf and its extended companion lcd_xprintf.

-- 
Björn