Hi Tom, On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Tom Warren <twar...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > Simon, > > > > From: s...@google.com [mailto:s...@google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:04 PM > To: Stephen Warren > Cc: U-Boot Mailing List; Tom Warren; Stephen Warren; tr...@ti.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: tegra: Avoid using I2C prior to relocation > > > > +Tom Rini > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > > On 08/07/2013 10:20 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 08/06/2013 11:52 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >> Tegra recently moved to the new I2C framework, which sets up I2C prior to > >> relocation, and prior to calling i2c_init_board(). This causes a crash on > >> Tegra boards. > >> > >> note: > >> > >> There are many ways to fix this. I believe this is one. It disables > >> i2c_init() > >> until relocation is complete. I have been unable to test it so far due to > >> problems getting my Seaboard to work. I will try another Tegra board, but > >> send this for comment in the meantime. > > > > Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> > > > > (On Beaver and Dalmore, tested booting to U-Boot command prompt followed > > by "i2c dev 0; i2c probe") > > > > Note: I believe this is an enormous hack that hacks around the problem > > of dynamic device initialization just not being well thought out > > relative to the restrictions of U-Boot's various boot stages. I'd still > > prefer an outright revert of the broken code. > > > > In other words, tegra_i2c_init() simply shouldn't be called at the wrong > > time; it shouldn't have to handle being called at the wrong time and > > null itself out when that happens. > > > > However, if this is what it takes to get U-Boot working again, then > > let's apply it ASAP. > > This doesn't seem to have been applied yet. Are you expecting this to go > through the main U-boot Tree, I2C tree, or Tegra tree? I just noticed > that you only CC'd the Tegra maintainer... > > > > I put tegra: on the front expecting it to go that way, but it doesn't matter. > Also your comments did not exactly represent a glowing recommendation. > > [Tom] It’s still marked RFC – doesn’t that have to go away before anyone can > pick it up / apply it?
Sorry, I missed this in first reading due to the quoting. I will re-issue without RFC. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot