[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/9 v3] 83xx, i2c: add mux support for fsl_i2c

[Heiko Schocher]

Hello Kim,

Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:24:09 +0100
> Heiko Schocher <hs at denx.de> wrote:
> 
>> @@ -369,6 +370,23 @@ i2c_probe(uchar chip)
>>
>>  int i2c_set_bus_num(unsigned int bus)
>>  {
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_I2C_MUX)
>> +	if (bus < CONFIG_SYS_MAX_I2C_BUS) {
>> +		i2c_bus_num = bus;
>> +	} else {
> 
> [1]
> 
>> +		int	ret;
>> +
>> +		ret = i2x_mux_select_mux(bus);
>> +		if (ret == 0) {
>> +			/* with CONFIG_I2C_MUX only I2C Controller 1
>> +			 * is usable
>> +			 */
>> +			i2c_bus_num = 0;
>> +			i2c_bus_num_mux = bus;
>> +		} else
>> +			return ret;
>> +	}
> 
> how about
> 
> ret = i2x_...
> if (ret)
> 	return ret;
> /* with...
> 
>> +#else
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SYS_I2C2_OFFSET
>>  	if (bus > 1) {
>>  #else
>> @@ -378,7 +396,7 @@ int i2c_set_bus_num(unsigned int bus)
>>  	}
>>
>>  	i2c_bus_num = bus;
>> -
>> +#endif
> 
> reuse code and moved the ifdef up, then [1] would just be:

Ok.

> if (bus >= CONFIG_SYS_MAX_I2C_BUS) {
> 
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>
>> @@ -396,7 +414,11 @@ int i2c_set_bus_speed(unsigned int speed)
>>
>>  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?

Good question, have to think about it.

bye
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany