From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Schocher Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:04:51 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] 7/12 Multiadapter/multibus I2C, drivers part 4 In-Reply-To: References: <499548C2.7060305@denx.de> <49967FAC.6090905@denx.de> <20090216221151.08966832E893@gemini.denx.de> <499BC42E.50001@denx.de> <499BCDC5.6080000@denx.de> <20090218215651.01589832E43F@gemini.denx.de> <20090218224837.6F9F0832E43F@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <499D12A3.2050601@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello ksi, ksi at koi8.net wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > >> Dear ksi at koi8.net, >> >> In message you wrote: [...] >>> Should we add a config option like CONFIG_I2C_INIT_ADAPTERS {1,3,5,9} ? But >> No, because we probably do not need to activate all tehse adapters at >> the same time. >> >>> Or should we remove i2c_init() from _ALL_ common places and let board >>> developers to call i2c_adap[X]->init() as they see fit? But that is a big >>> rewrite... And there is another place, cmd_i2c.c that must be taken care >>> of... >> You will always call i2c_init() for a specific I2C device. >> >> The code should automatically know which adapters need to be initia- >> lized to "talk" to that device. Yes, you must somehow describe the >> I2C bus topology, but a single one-way description for the path from >> the specific device to the CPU should be sufficient. > > Topology is already there, this is not a problem. That is that > initinialization that is. The a.m. approach means the I2C layer should not No this is no problem, if you have a look at my proposal for i2c_set_bus_num() bye Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany