On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > 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.
OK, so I'm on it. It might take a couple of weeks for patches to show up. --- ****************************************************************** * k...@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. * * Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. * ****************************************************************** _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
