The more I look into the I2C drivers, the less convinced I am that fsl_i2c is where I need to be looking. Additionally, although Variscite had included the fsl_i2c.h header and had actually referenced fsl_i2c in some documentation and comments, the more I dig through their code, it is looking like the only I2C routines that are even getting compiled in their U-Boot implementation are those in mxc_i2c.c -- which actually look to be a fairly clean implementation for the i.MX series of parts that doesn't appear to require much additional support code along with it (other than, once again, some of the clock configuration routine). It appears to be much more simplistic and bare metal than the i2c-imx.c that is currently used in barebox. Since the mxc_i2c.c driver in U-Boot was written also written by Sascha Hauer, I'm sort of throwing this one out as a question to Sascha or anyone else familiar with this code: For an early access I2C driver on the i.MX6, do you think it would make more sense to try starting from the fsl_i2c.c code under barebox or from the original U-Boot mxc_i2c.c code? I'm beginning to suspect the latter may actually be easier to start from (and it would already match the function calls that Variscite is using in the code I am transplanting from their U-Boot tree). Thanks again! Michael Burkey _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
