Julius Werner wrote: > > We maybe can expand it to have informations like time-out or > > retry count for a given segment. > > One word of caution I'd like to add here is that making this API more > complex/powerful requires significant effort, now and in the future.
Not if the architecture is any good. > We already have 4 I2C driver implementations in coreboot, and 4 more > are going to be upstreamed soon from the Chromium tree. As we scale up > to we'll probably add at least one new driver per SoC vendor, maybe > even per SoC. Adding complex functionality like retries to the API > will require us to account for it over an over again in every single > implementation. No - that doesn't make any sense. Probably there will be a fair bit of code that can be shared among controllers. There aren't that many ways to implement I²C. > I think the question is really what we would gain from this. I think it's less about performance and more about an accurate and clean model being available to mainboard code when needed. //Peter -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot