[U-Boot] [PATCH 03/16] pmic:max8997: Switch the MAX8997 PMIC to be used with multibus I2C

[Lukasz Majewski <lukma633@gmail.com>]

Hi Stefano,

> On 14/09/2012 17:40, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > PMIC MAX8997 is now ready to work with single and multibus soft I2C
> > implementation.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c
> > b/drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c index 62dbc05..4943f66 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c
> > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> >  #include <common.h>
> >  #include <pmic.h>
> >  #include <max8997_pmic.h>
> > +#include <i2c.h>
> >  
> >  int pmic_init(void)
> >  {
> > @@ -37,7 +38,7 @@ int pmic_init(void)
> >  	p->number_of_regs = PMIC_NUM_OF_REGS;
> >  	p->hw.i2c.addr = MAX8997_I2C_ADDR;
> >  	p->hw.i2c.tx_num = 1;
> > -	p->bus = I2C_PMIC;
> > +	p->bus = I2C_0;
> >  
> 
> I do not see so useful to add an enum for each instance of the I2C
> bus. And we have to add it if the number of i2c busses grows. IMHO it
> is better to use directly the constant, so later in another patch
> pmic_init(5) instead of pmic(I2C_5).
> 

This problem has been already discussed with Heiko:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/181789/

I think, that we will have to have an enum of available I2C_x busses at
<i2c.h> header file.

In the case of Trats and PMIC framework, the I2C_0 is done on purpose
to keep the trats board working (since the PMIC is in reality connected
to I2C_5). This numbering (I2C_0) needs to be there until prerequisite
patches aren't accepted (the multibus I2C support on trats board)

Regards,
Lukasz Majewski