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