From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:47:06 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] arm: socfpga: Add I2C support to SoCFPGA
In-Reply-To: <5448B46D.1090203@denx.de>
References: <1413787548-25438-1-git-send-email-sr@denx.de>
	<544600D6.9060703@denx.de> <5448B46D.1090203@denx.de>
Message-ID: <201410231047.06581.marex@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 09:55:25 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Marek, Hi Heiko!

Hi all!

> On 21.10.2014 08:44, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> >>>   /*
> >>> 
> >>> + * I2C support
> >>> + */
> >>> +#define CONFIG_HARD_I2C
> > 
> > No ... do not add this define please.
> > 
> >>> +#define CONFIG_DW_I2C
> >>> +#define CONFIG_I2C_MULTI_BUS
> >> 
> >> I presume this should be converted to CONFIG_SYS_I2C framework instead
> >> of using
> >> this I2C multibus horror, no?
> > 
> > ... Yes, please!
> > 
> > Which i2c driver does socfpga use? If it is the
> > "drivers/i2c/designware_i2c.c"
> > driver, please convert it to the "CONFIG_SYS_I2C" framework.
> 
> Yes. Its the designware driver.
> 
> I wanted to make this I2C support for SoCFPGA least intrusive. But I see
> your point. Moving this driver to the new I2C framework makes sense.
> 
> > You may also take a look into Simons RFC patches, which introduce
> > DM model:
> > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-October/191497.html
> 
> This seems a bit too early for me.
> 
> I'll try to find some time to move to the "CONFIG_SYS_I2C" framework...

I think this makes sense indeed and helps a lot. Thank you very much!

Best regards,
Marek Vasut