[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/7] Remove individual I2C commands and cleanup

[Peter Tyser]

Hi Heiko,

> > This patch series removes the "individual" I2C commands (and the
> > CONFIG_I2C_CMD_TREE define) and migrates all boards to the newer
> > "tree style" I2C commands.
> > 
> > A small amount of cleanup was performed before and after removing
> > the individual commands.
> 
> Thanks for your work, looks good to me. I make some tests
> with your patches, and if they are OK, I apply your patches to
> u-boot-i2c.git.

Great, thanks.

> Hmm.. maybe you can have a look at my posting:
> 
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-March/049506.html
> 
> There is a new i2c_core.c file which holds all "common" i2c
> functions, for example the  i2c_[set|get]_bus_speed(). I
> think such a file is a better place for it.

I agree that the concept of having common i2c functions in common file
(and not in cmd_i2c.c) is a good idea.  If you want me to rebase my
changes on the i2c multibus_v2 tree let me know and I'll move the
i2c_[set|get]_bus_speed() to i2c_core.c and resubmit.

While we're discussing the i2c commands, another TODO item could be to
transition the new tree-style I2C command to use a cmd_tbl_t instead of
the current ifs/strncmp.

> I wonder I get no response for cleaning up the i2c subsystem ...
> is here no interest in doing such a cleanup? (I think it is
> a necessary step ...)

My guess would be that people aren't making lots of comments because:
- Most people don't require the new functionality of the i2c subsystem
cleanup with their current hardware, thus they have less of an interest
in critiquing it as it doesn't really affect them.  They also don't have
any hardware to test/play with the new features.
- Most people are busy working on changes that do affect their hardware,
etc
- It takes more effort to review patches that haven't been posted to the
mailing list
- The original i2c discussion/flameware scared them off:)

Anyway, I agree with Jerry that the added functionality of the i2c
subsystem cleanup is good (but can't speak to the implementation),
hopefully the lack of comments mean people haven't found anything too
objectionable in your changes.

Best,
Peter