From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Schocher Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:08:31 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] 7/12 Multiadapter/multibus I2C, drivers part 4 In-Reply-To: <20090219205002.DA821832E43F@gemini.denx.de> References: <499548C2.7060305@denx.de> <49967FAC.6090905@denx.de> <20090216221151.08966832E893@gemini.denx.de> <20090217224940.02BC6832E893@gemini.denx.de> <20090218001322.4A43C832E893@gemini.denx.de> <499BBD25.4070907@denx.de> <20090218182625.22E71832E43F@gemini.denx.de> <20090218220935.13639832E43F@gemini.denx.de> <499D118E.4070404@denx.de> <20090219205002.DA821832E43F@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <499E56EF.4000605@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 Wolfgang, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear ksi at koi8.net, > > In message you wrote: [...] >> That means you'll have to rewrite the entire U-Boot. 99% of the boards have >> only one bus so they did not switch busses. That means they never called >> that i2c_set_bus_num() relying on i2c_init() in libxxx/board.c instead. > > I cannot follow your argument. > > Yes, the status quo is as you describe, it relies on i2c_init() and > is simple-minded and does not support an arbitry number of > arbitrarily complex I2C bus trees and multiplexors and expanders and > what else. But it was sufficient for the first 10 years and 500 > boards of U-Boot development. > > Now we are discussion a major redesign, so what is the big problem of > changing this part? "rewrite the entire U-Boot"? Please stay serious. > Compared to the other changes you suggest, this is not that big a > part. I think so too. bye Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany