Hello Kim, Kim Phillips wrote: > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:00:39 +0100 > Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote: > >>> so instead of naming it "i2c_bus_num_mux" it should be renamed >>> "i2c_adapter_num"?, or does i2c_get_bus_num() still imply that it will >> No, i2c_adapter_num should be 0 or 1 for Controller 0 or 1, I think, >> and i2c_bus_num_mux can be greater then 1. >> >> If we would do a rename, we should rename "i2c_bus_num" to "i2c_adapter_num". >> In case, we don;t use i2c mux, i2c_bus_num = i2c_adapter_num. >> else i2c_bus_num >= i2c_adapter_num (=0 or 1) > > sigh..that's not really that better either.
yes, sorry. >>> altogether? >> We should rework this "i2c multibus" instead complete, so we can remove >> all this instances from i2c_get_bus_num()/i2c_set_bus_num() in every >> i2c driver ... such an attempt was in discussion, but unfortunately >> failed ... but I hope I can retrigger it. > > ok - looking forward to it. Yep, I hope to get this running on beginning of march, and this approach, hopefully, solves a lot of this problems. 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
