From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:21:40 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 8/9] tegra: i2c: Enable new CONFIG_SYS_I2C
 framework
In-Reply-To: <CAPnjgZ2YM1tG0r2857HoqoXqYduyk0VzHkFiLBoL7yg_99cM0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1367668903-29653-1-git-send-email-hs@denx.de>
	<1367668903-29653-9-git-send-email-hs@denx.de>
	<51F6946F.8010500@wwwdotorg.org> <51F740FD.4080505@denx.de>
	<51F81261.7020008@wwwdotorg.org>
	<CAPnjgZ2YM1tG0r2857HoqoXqYduyk0VzHkFiLBoL7yg_99cM0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51F82E64.9060009@wwwdotorg.org>
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 07/30/2013 03:19 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org
> <mailto:swarren@wwwdotorg.org>> wrote:
...
>     I think when init_sequence_f[] is running, there may be no serial
>     console to report errors. If so, moving the I2C initialization to that
>     early point sounds like a really bad idea.
> 
> 
> Not really - when you see the U-Boot banner the console is working, and
> we clearly see the U-Boot banner before i2c init happens.

I thought it got buffered up and only actually sent to the UART much
later, and not in the case when something failed since U-Boot wouldn't
get that far? Or, did that proposal get shot down?