RFC RFC: dm: Add I2C support
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 RFC Latest0 of 12 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 12 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
| Patch | Heiko Schocher |
|---|---|
| Series | A-b |
Trailers given in replies are filled; those carried in the patches from earlier versions are outlined with dashes.
Cover letter [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/12] RFC: dm: Add I2C support
Hello Simon,
sorry for the long delay...
Am 13.10.2014 07:39, schrieb Simon Glass:
Quoted 23 lines
(Note this is RFC since the uclass interface needs discussion and also because only sandbox is implemented so far. But I thought it best to get this out there as soon as I wrote it as it may influence the PMIC library, etc.)
This series is an initial attempt to add I2C support to driver model. It has become apparent that this is a high priority as it is widely used. It follows along to some extent from the SPI conversion.
Several changes are made from the original I2C implementations.
Firstly It is not necessary to specify the chip address with every call, since each chip knows its own address - it is stored in struct
dm_i2c_chipwhich is attached to each chip on the I2C bus. However, this information *is* passed to the driver since I presume most drivers need it and it would be cumbersome to look up in every call.Secondly there is no concept of a 'current' I2C bus so all associated logic is removed. With driver model
i2c_set_bus_num()andi2c_get_bus_num()are not available. Since the chip device specifies both the bus and the chip address, there is no need for this concept. It also causes problems when one driver changes the current bus and forgets to change it back.
Quoted 3 lines
Thirdly initialisation is handled by driver model's normal
probe()method on each device so there should be no need fori2c_init_all(),i2c_init(),i2c_init_board(),i2c_board_late_init()andboard_i2c_init().
Great!
Quoted 4 lines
I2C muxes are not yet supported. To support these we will need to maintain state of the current mux settings to avoid resetting every mux every time. Probably we need to add a sandbox I2C mux driver to permit testing of this. This can probably be done later.
Currently only the keymile boards really use i2c muxes, so I am fine with doing this in a second step.
Quoted 5 lines
Platform data is not yet supported either, only device tree. The
U_BOOT_I2C_MKENT_COMPLETE()andU_BOOT_I2C_ADAP_COMPLETE()macros are not used. Also structi2c_adapteris not defined anymore. This will need to be addressed, perhaps as part of converting over a board that does not use device tree.
Ok for this in the first step... The question raised if we only would support Device tree with DM ... so maybe we do not need to do this step.
I am not really sure, if we should really support Device Tree only with DM, because:
- do all archs switch to Device Tree in the near future?
- in SPL we have really on some SoCs small memory (like I just work on some AT91 boards which have 4k only!) To get DM with Device Tree into 4k is a big challenge ... so in my opinion, it would be good to have the possibility of Platform data ... so we prevent to make dirty hacks for the SPL case (I hope) ...
Quoted 1 line
This series is available at u-boot-dm/i2c-working.
Thanks for your great work.
I looked through your patchset and have no real objection against it ... To the "i2c deblocking" subject ... we should add at least the "deblock()" in "struct dm_i2c_ops" and call it "do_i2c_reset" if defined ... beside of this, you can add my
to the hole series.
bye,
Heiko
Signature · 2 lines
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany