Hi Simon, > Hi Lukasz, > > On 27 March 2014 11:33, Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com> > wrote: Hi Simon, Heiko > > > From: Aaron Durbin <adur...@chromium.org> > > > > The current pmic i2c code assumes the current i2c bus is > > the same as the pmic device's bus. There is nothing ensuring > > that to be true. Therefore, select the proper bus before performing > > a transaction. > > > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Durbin <adur...@chromium.org> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > --- > > > > drivers/power/power_i2c.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/power/power_i2c.c b/drivers/power/power_i2c.c > > index ac76870..594cd11 100644 > > --- a/drivers/power/power_i2c.c > > +++ b/drivers/power/power_i2c.c > > @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ int pmic_reg_write(struct pmic *p, u32 reg, u32 > > val) if (check_reg(p, reg)) > > return -1; > > > > + I2C_SET_BUS(p->bus); > > + > > Hadn't we had a discussion about this explicit setting of I2C some > time ago? I thought that this problem was solved within the I2C > rework. > > Also I might be wrong, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the > I2C_SET_BUS() macro regarded as a obsolete after the I2C rework? > > Agreed that would be ideal, but we would have to pass the bus number > of the i2c_read/write() functions. I don't believe the i2c code has > got that far yet. > > Unfortunately it doesn't work without this patch.
If Heiko doesn't object, then I won't protest. > > Regards, > Simon > -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
