On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 05:51:44PM +0300, Lubomir Popov wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 30/05/13 17:37, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:24:42AM +0300, Lubomir Popov wrote: > > > >> Tested on OMAP4/5 only, but should work on older OMAPs and > >> derivatives as well. > >> > >> - Rewritten i2c_read to operate correctly with all types of chips > >> (old function could not read consistent data from some I2C slaves). > >> - Optimised i2c_write. > >> - New i2c_probe, optionally selectable via CONFIG_I2C_PROBE_WRITE, > >> performs write access vs read. The old probe could hang the system > >> under certain conditions (e.g. unconfigured pads). > >> - The read/write/probe functions try to identify unconfigured bus. > >> - Status functions now read irqstatus_raw as per TRM guidelines > >> (except for OMAP243X and OMAP34XX). > >> - Driver now supports up to I2C5 (OMAP5). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Lubomir Popov <lpo...@mm-sol.com> > > > > With CONFIG_I2C_PROBE_WRITE set: > > Tested-by: Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> on Beagleboard / Beagleboard xM > > > > So lets just go with the write probe always being on again. > > > > Now, when I git am'd I saw some whitespace problems, so please make sure > > v4 is checkpatch clean. And note that printf("Long than 80 char wide", > > a, b) is OK and expected to NOT break the string (but do align the > > args). > > > OK, shall do it tonight. I see a minor problem however: if we are not > going to support all OMAP2 chips (the 2420 in particular), isn't it > somewhat misleading to keep the driver named omap24xx_i2c? Letting > you decide...
Please add a comment that this driver needs some re-adaptation for the OMAP2420 implementation of this IP block now. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot