[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 02/19] dm: i2c: Add dm_i2c_probe_device() to test the presence of a chip

[Jean-Jacques Hiblot]

Hi Simon,

thanks for the reviews.


On 11/10/2018 05:13, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Jean-Jacques,
>
> On 5 October 2018 at 10:45, Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot at ti.com> wrote:
>> In a non-DM environment, it is possible to test the presence of a chip
>> using i2c_probe(chip_addr).
>> dm_i2c_probe_device() brings the same functionality with a DM interface.
>> The intent is to be able to test the presence of a chip for the device has
>> been created with i2c_get_chip_for_busnum(bus_num, chip_addr, ...)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot at ti.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2: None
>>
>>   drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c |  8 ++++++++
>>   include/i2c.h            | 13 +++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c
>> index c5a3c4e..ec88168 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c
>> @@ -378,6 +378,14 @@ int dm_i2c_probe(struct udevice *bus, uint chip_addr, uint chip_flags,
>>          return ret;
>>   }
>>
>> +int dm_i2c_probe_device(struct udevice *dev)
>> +{
>> +       struct udevice *bus = dev_get_parent(dev);
>> +       struct dm_i2c_chip *chip = dev_get_parent_platdata(dev);
>> +
>> +       return i2c_probe_chip(bus, chip->chip_addr, chip->flags);
>> +}
> Why not just probe the device? That should have the same effect.
The device itself is not probed when using i2c_get_chip_for_busnum(). I 
could have changed it there but was sure about possible side-effects on 
all boards.
The code that uses the non-DM API usually calls I2C_probe() at some 
point, this function is the equivalent in the DM world.

JJ
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>