Hi Stefano,
> On 14/09/2012 17:40, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > PMIC MAX8997 is now ready to work with single and multibus soft I2C
> > implementation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c
> > b/drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c index 62dbc05..4943f66 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/pmic_max8997.c
> > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> > #include <common.h>
> > #include <pmic.h>
> > #include <max8997_pmic.h>
> > +#include <i2c.h>
> >
> > int pmic_init(void)
> > {
> > @@ -37,7 +38,7 @@ int pmic_init(void)
> > p->number_of_regs = PMIC_NUM_OF_REGS;
> > p->hw.i2c.addr = MAX8997_I2C_ADDR;
> > p->hw.i2c.tx_num = 1;
> > - p->bus = I2C_PMIC;
> > + p->bus = I2C_0;
> >
>
> I do not see so useful to add an enum for each instance of the I2C
> bus. And we have to add it if the number of i2c busses grows. IMHO it
> is better to use directly the constant, so later in another patch
> pmic_init(5) instead of pmic(I2C_5).
>
This problem has been already discussed with Heiko:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/181789/
I think, that we will have to have an enum of available I2C_x busses at
<i2c.h> header file.
In the case of Trats and PMIC framework, the I2C_0 is done on purpose
to keep the trats board working (since the PMIC is in reality connected
to I2C_5). This numbering (I2C_0) needs to be there until prerequisite
patches aren't accepted (the multibus I2C support on trats board)
Regards,
Lukasz Majewski
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
