On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:26:44AM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 11/03/2015 09:13 AM, Steven Kipisz wrote: > > On 11/03/2015 07:16 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote: > >> Hi Steve, > >> > >> On 11/03/15 14:22, Steve Kipisz wrote: > >>> From: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvu...@ti.com> > >> > >> [...] > >> > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvu...@ti.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Steve Kipisz <s-kipi...@ti.com> > >>> --- > >>> v2 Based on > >>> master a6104737 ARM: at91: sama5: change the environment > >>> address to 0x6000 > >>> > >>> Changes in v2 (since v1) > >>> - make the EEPROM code mor generic for TI EVMs > >>> - rename structures/subroutines to ti_am_xxxxx > >>> - add routines to access the EEPROM data > >>> - redo commit message to be more clear > >>> > >>> v1: http://marc.info/?t=144608007900001&r=1&w=2 > >>> (mailing list squashed original submission) > >>> > >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/Makefile | 1 + > >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/ti-i2c-eeprom.c | 148 > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> arch/arm/include/asm/omap_common.h | 130 > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++- > >>> 3 files changed, 278 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/ti-i2c-eeprom.c > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/Makefile > >>> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/Makefile > >>> index 464a5d1d732a..53a9fdb81100 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/Makefile > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/Makefile > >>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ obj-y += clocks-common.o > >>> obj-y += emif-common.o > >>> obj-y += vc.o > >>> obj-y += abb.o > >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_I2C) += ti-i2c-eeprom.o > >> > >> This makes this module compile on all TI SoC based boards enabling I2C. > >> AFAIU, this is a separate chip (not inside the SoC), so this module will > >> also compile on non-TI boards that do not have this EEPROM. > >> I think, it should be more fine grained (e.g. have its own symbol). > >> > > Can you give a suggestion? > > Are you sure this will be built into non-ti SoCs with I2C enabled if you > are not using the function? I assume __maybe_unused should take care of > that, no - let the compiler do the gc anyways?
The gc should work, yes. But this is also TI-centric code and should end up in board/ti/ similar to how the Siemens AM335x EEPROM code is under board/siemens/ because they didn't re-use the TI format :) -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
