Dear k...@koi8.net,
In message <pine.lnx.4.64ksi.0812161102580.28...@home-gw.koi8.net> you wrote:
>
> I offered 4 possible scenarios and additional parameter to i2c functions was
> one of them. Wolfgang said that current bus approach looks better than
> others and I agree with him. But it is not rocket science to use an
You and me agree on this.
> additional parameter either. The only thing is it MUST be consistent, i.e.
> we should NOT have 2 different sets of functions based on CONFIG_MULTIBUS or
We agree on this, too.
> whatever. If we are to make this change ALL boards must be multibus with
> majority of them having bus count of 1.
I don't think this makes sense - it would just add complexity and
memory footprint without added benefit.
> Does anybody else have something to say on this? I'm going to write code so
> let's make some decision. I don't want this to end up as a company hack and
> making it properly affects a lot of U-boot...
I support your position, not Timur's.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
We fight only when there is no other choice. We prefer the ways of
peaceful contact.
-- Kirk, "Spectre of the Gun", stardate 4385.3
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
