Hello Lubomir, Am 01.06.2013 18:44, schrieb Lubomir Popov: > New i2c_read, i2c_write and i2c_probe functions, tested on OMAP4 > (4430/60/70), OMAP5 (5430) and AM335X (3359); should work on older > OMAPs and derivatives as well. The only anticipated exception would > be the OMAP2420, which shall require driver modification. > - 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, 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> > --- > V5 changes: > - Replaced some printf() with puts(). > - Minor formatting touches, checkpatch-clean. > V4 changes: > - New i2c_probe is built unconditionally, old code is removed. > CONFIG_I2C_PROBE_WRITE is no longer needed. > - Added a small delay to work around breakage in AM335X SPL. > - Some whitespace and general formatting cleanup. > V3 changes: > - Removed old functions and conditional compilation. New functions > are now built unconditionally for all SoCs using this driver. The > only chip that should break is the OMAP2420 dinosaur. > - Interrupts are enabled for OMAP243X and OMAP34XX only (where we > don't have an irqstatus_raw register). > V2 changes: > - Probe tries to identify misconfigured pads as well. > - Status is retrieved from irqstatus_raw rather than from stat. > - Some minor style & format changes. > > drivers/i2c/omap24xx_i2c.c | 490 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 299 insertions(+), 191 deletions(-)
Tested on 3 arm335x based boards, which one uses i2c in SPL code for getting ram parameters, so: Tested-by: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> Just one comment: Your patch has 9 checkpatch warnings which are all lines (printf strings) over 80 chars ... some with lines > 110 characters ... I know, tom gave you a OK for this ... I am also unhappy with splitting a printf-string over 2 or more lines ... but we have this 80 characters rule ... Wolfgang, what do you think? Should we loosen this rule for printf-strings? bye, Heiko -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot