Hello ksi, k...@koi8.net wrote: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Heiko Schocher wrote: >> k...@koi8.net wrote: >>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>>> In message <pine.lnx.4.64ksi.0902181112400.5...@home-gw.koi8.net> you >>>> wrote: [...] >>> I'm open to any alternative possibilities but I can not see anything better. >>> That _EXISTING_ soft_i2c.c we have in the current tree is a little miracle >>> that was there since the start of times so I can't see any reason to throw >>> it away and reinvent the wheel. >> Nobody wants to throw it away! > > You want...
No, we don;t want to throw away soft-i2c.c and make it new. Nobody said this. We just discus your multibus support for it. >>>>> The former does not require additional adapter struct member, hwadap_no. >>>>> And, unlike the latter, it is self-contained, it doesn't require any >>>>> external global variable to decide what to do. One can initialize all >>>>> adapters by: >>>>> >>>>> for (i = 0; i < NUM_I2C_ADAPTERS; i++) >>>>> i2c_adap[i]->init(...); >>>> Most probably we never *want* to initialize all adapters... >>> It is easier that way and wouldn't do any harm in most cases... >> But it is not needed when doing this in i2c_set_bus_num() !! >> It is sufficent to init a hardwareadapter, when switching to it. > > 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. But we can call i2c_set_bus_num instead of i2c_init() right? > Sorry guys, I do not have THAT much free time that my employer would let me > to spend on this. Hey, this is "my" free time. I don;t get money for this discussion. bye Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot