Hi Jean-Jacques,
On 11 October 2018 at 06:01, Jean-Jacques Hiblot jjhiblot@ti.com wrote:
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@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@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.
So if you change your above function to:
int dm_i2c_probe_device(struct udevice *dev) { return device_probe(dev); }
what happens?
Regards, Simon