On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 08:10 +0200, Heiko Schocher wrote:
Hello Peter,
Peter Tyser wrote:
Add the ability to not report an I2C POST error for a set of given I2C addresses on bootup. This is useful for the following cases:
Some form factors such as XMC and Compact PCI Express have an I2C EEPROM whose address changes based on geographical address. Eg installed in one slot its EEPROM address is, 0x50, in another its 0x51, etc. This allows multiple devices to have their EEPROMs present on the same I2C bus. Thus the I2C devices present for an XMC or CPCIe card depend on if and where other cards are installed in the same system.
Some cards have optional I2C devices. Eg one hardware build configuration has different I2C devices than another.
Some cards have optional daughtercards with I2C devices on them.
I2C EEPROMs address range depends on their size. Its possible to support differently size EEPROMs by only probing the EEPROM's base address and ignoring the other addresses that are impacted by its size.
A new I2C_ADDR_IGNORE_LIST define has been added which specifies a list of I2C addresses for the I2C POST to ignore.
Signed-off-by: Peter Tyser ptyser@xes-inc.com CC: hs@denx.de
post/drivers/i2c.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Maybe you can add a little info in the README?
The existing I2C_ADDR_LIST isn't documented, so I didn't document this addition. I'll mention them both in doc/README.POST.
diff --git a/post/drivers/i2c.c b/post/drivers/i2c.c index 2dd128e..9e1fd50 100644 --- a/post/drivers/i2c.c +++ b/post/drivers/i2c.c @@ -40,6 +40,20 @@
#if CONFIG_POST & CONFIG_SYS_POST_I2C
+static int i2c_ignore_device(unsigned int chip) +{ +#ifdef I2C_ADDR_IGNORE_LIST
Hmm.. as this is only used in post code, this should be visible in the defines name, what with:
I2C_POST_ADDR_IGNORE_LIST
I was following the lead of the existing I2C_ADDR_LIST define. Agreed it should be named differently. I'll go with CONFIG_SYS_POST_I2C_ADDRS and CONFIG_SYS_POST_I2C_IGNORES unless someone else chimes in.
Thanks for the review, Peter