Hi Tom, On 29/05/13 16:24, Tom Rini wrote: > On 05/29/2013 02:34 AM, Lubomir Popov wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 29.05.2013 01:55, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On 05/27/2013 02:44 PM, Lubomir Popov wrote: >>> >>>>>>> P.S. I have an updated version of the I2C driver patch, with some >>>>>>> minor >>>>>>> improvements (mainly on identification of unconfigured bus). Should I >>>>>>> submit it, what are you plans in respect to I2C? >>>>>> Yes, please submit the i2c driver changes, I shall take them in some >>>>>> form or another soon. >>>>> OK, can even try to do this now from here. >>>> Submitted - http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/246204/ >>>> Looking at it again, I tend to dislike this solution more and more. >>>> Ugly ifdef-ed code. Couldn't we reconsider again adding this as a new >>>> driver, built for those SoCs that are confirmed to work (OMAP4 and 5 >>>> for sure)? >>> Lets take another swag at this. Update the functions for everyone and >>> I'll get some omap3 testing done. >> OK, but you shall have to either entirely remove the ifdefs and the old >> functions, or edit the >> #if defined(CONFIG_OMAPxxxx)... conditions to include the SoC types you >> are testing on. > > Yeah. If you don't repost the patch with just always using the new > functions, I'll do some local yanking out. I kinda hope to pencil that > in as my task for tomorrow. Thanks :) > OK, I shall do it now. Does it matter if I base on u-boot-ti, or on mainline? Guess not...
Regards, Lubo _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
