Hi Michal,
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> On 29.12.2016 23:50, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>> For mux check if the parent is already a device of UCLASS_I2C and if yes
>> just use that. Otherwise see if someone specified an i2c-parent phandle.
>> This mimics the behavior found in the Kernel, as it removes the
>> requirement to explicitly specify a i2c-parent phandle.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <moritz.fisc...@ettus.com>
>> Cc: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de>
>> Cc: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
>> Cc: Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com>
>> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
>> ---
>> drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-uclass.c | 9 +++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-uclass.c
>> b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-uclass.c
>> index 7a698b6..e01b773 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-uclass.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-uclass.c
>> @@ -86,6 +86,15 @@ static int i2c_mux_post_probe(struct udevice *mux)
>> debug("%s: %s\n", __func__, mux->name);
>> priv->selected = -1;
>>
>> + /* if parent is of i2c uclass already, we'll take that, otherwise
>> + * look if we find an i2c-parent phandle */
>
> Incorrect comment style.
Yeah, wasn't flagged by checkpatch .... will fix.
>
>> + if (UCLASS_I2C == device_get_uclass_id(mux->parent)) {
>> + priv->i2c_bus = dev_get_parent(mux);
>> + debug("%s: bus=%p/%s\n", __func__, priv->i2c_bus,
>> + priv->i2c_bus->name);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> ret = uclass_get_device_by_phandle(UCLASS_I2C, mux, "i2c-parent",
>> &priv->i2c_bus);
>> if (ret)
>>
>
> The part of this will be good to also handle
> req_seq for mux busses. But at least this should solved part of the
> problems.
I'm not sure I understand this comment.
Thanks for the review, will resubmit
Moritz
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
