public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] WIP: tegra: i2c: Enable new CONFIG_SYS_I2C framework
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:30:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50A2839E.1030905@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50A1E780.4090807@denx.de>

On 11/12/2012 11:24 PM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> On 08.11.2012 18:05, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/07/2012 11:47 PM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
>>> On 01.11.2012 18:03, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I'd suggest having a CONFIG_SYS_I2C_DRIVERS variable at most, and each
>>>> driver registers an arbitrary number of adapters and/or buses during
>>>> its
>>>> initialization.
>>>
>>> Why should an i2c driver register buses? That is board specific.
>>
>> I don't entirely agree here. Certainly the information is
>> board-specific, but I don't believe that precludes bus registration
>> occurring from the I2C adapter drivers themselves, based on information
>> passed from a board file or device tree.
>>
>> If a particular adapter is instantiated by the board, then there is
>> clearly an I2C bus attached to that adapter. Hence, it's quite
>> reasonable for the adapter itself to register the bus directly attached
>> to it.
> 
> But some i2c drivers have more than one instance... would you for all
> boards register all possible instances of a driver? ...

Register, but perhaps not initialize, seems fine to me.

After all, what if the user wishes to use the I2C adapters for some
custom command; up-front registration of all valid adapters is required
for that, although actual initialization can always be deferred until
if/when the adapter is actually used.

The other issue is that as I pointed out before, the move to define
which I2C (and all other peripheral) adapters are used via device tree
rather than board/config files on some U-Boot platforms seems completely
at odds with not always registering all I2C adapters, at least on the
platforms that use device tree.

>> Following on from there, if there's an I2C bus mux attached to some I2C
>> bus, then there are clearly I2C buses downstream from the bus mux, and
>> the bus mux driver knows exactly how many there are, and can register
>> those buses.
> 
> Here again, why register all possible buses? We are just a bootloader ...

I don't see how being a bootloader is relevant. After all, people can
use for example U-Boot I2C or GPIO commands for board bringup, to
implement HW initialization via custom boot scripts, etc.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-11-13 17:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-30 17:28 [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] tegra: i2c: Add function to know about current bus Simon Glass
2012-10-30 17:28 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] WIP: tegra: i2c: Enable new CONFIG_SYS_I2C framework Simon Glass
2012-10-30 22:32   ` Stephen Warren
2012-10-31  6:00     ` Heiko Schocher
2012-10-31 15:41       ` Stephen Warren
2012-10-31 15:56         ` Simon Glass
2012-10-31 16:25           ` Stephen Warren
2012-11-01  7:42             ` Heiko Schocher
2012-11-01 17:03               ` Stephen Warren
2012-11-05 20:39                 ` Simon Glass
2012-11-08  7:02                   ` Heiko Schocher
2012-11-08 18:03                     ` Simon Glass
2012-11-08  6:47                 ` Heiko Schocher
2012-11-08 17:05                   ` Stephen Warren
2012-11-13  6:24                     ` Heiko Schocher
2012-11-13  7:48                       ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-11-13 17:30                       ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2012-10-31  5:53   ` Heiko Schocher
2012-10-31  5:26 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] tegra: i2c: Add function to know about current bus Heiko Schocher
2012-11-05 20:43   ` Simon Glass
2012-11-08  7:05     ` Heiko Schocher

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=50A2839E.1030905@wwwdotorg.org \
    --to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox