On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:53:33 +0100
Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote:
> Hello Kim,
>
> Kim Phillips wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:24:09 +0100
> > Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote:
> [...]
> >> unsigned int i2c_get_bus_num(void)
> >> {
> >> +#if defined(CONFIG_I2C_MUX)
> >> + return i2c_bus_num_mux;
> >> +#else
> >> return i2c_bus_num;
> >> +#endif
> >> }
> >
> > I don't get this mux variant - why aren't we reusing i2c_bus_num in the
> > mux case?
>
> Because i2c_bus_num is used as an index which hardware i2c controller
> is used (0 or 1). In CONFIG_I2C_MUX case, you have more than 2 i2c
> busses -> i2c_bus_num would be greater than 1, so you must have a
> variable, where you store which hardware adapter you use, and one
> which stores on which i2c bus you are.
so instead of naming it "i2c_bus_num_mux" it should be renamed
"i2c_adapter_num"?, or does i2c_get_bus_num() still imply that it will
return the /bus/ number? Perhaps we should we have a separate function
altogether?
Kim
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
