| Message ID | 20220617182612.12575-3-nm@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | bc1de483711c30e32dffdf71574aa878c1087ed0 |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
| Series | board: ti: common: Fixups and optimizations for eeprom handling | expand |
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:26:11PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > Due to supply chain issues, we are starting to see a mixture of eeprom > usage including the smaller 7-bit addressing eeproms such as 24c04 > used for eeproms. > > These eeproms don't respond well to 2 byte addressing and fail the > read operation. We do have a check to ensure that we are reading the > alternate addressing size, however the valid failure prevents us > from checking at 1 byte anymore. > > Rectify the same by falling through and depend on header data comparison > to ensure that we have valid data. > > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:26:11PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > Due to supply chain issues, we are starting to see a mixture of eeprom > usage including the smaller 7-bit addressing eeproms such as 24c04 > used for eeproms. > > These eeproms don't respond well to 2 byte addressing and fail the > read operation. We do have a check to ensure that we are reading the > alternate addressing size, however the valid failure prevents us > from checking at 1 byte anymore. > > Rectify the same by falling through and depend on header data comparison > to ensure that we have valid data. > > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> > Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> Applied to u-boot/next, thanks!
diff --git a/board/ti/common/board_detect.c b/board/ti/common/board_detect.c index 381cddc00ad1..0806dea11ed5 100644 --- a/board/ti/common/board_detect.c +++ b/board/ti/common/board_detect.c @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ __weak void gpi2c_init(void) static int __maybe_unused ti_i2c_eeprom_get(int bus_addr, int dev_addr, u32 header, u32 size, uint8_t *ep) { - u32 hdr_read; + u32 hdr_read = 0xdeadbeef; int rc; #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(DM_I2C) @@ -107,9 +107,13 @@ static int __maybe_unused ti_i2c_eeprom_get(int bus_addr, int dev_addr, if (rc) return rc; - rc = dm_i2c_read(dev, 0, (uint8_t *)&hdr_read, 4); - if (rc) - return rc; + /* + * Skip checking result here since this could be a valid i2c read fail + * on some boards that use 1 byte addressing. + * We must allow for fall through to check the data if 1 byte + * addressing works + */ + (void)dm_i2c_read(dev, 0, (uint8_t *)&hdr_read, 4); /* Corrupted data??? */ if (hdr_read != header) { @@ -144,9 +148,13 @@ static int __maybe_unused ti_i2c_eeprom_get(int bus_addr, int dev_addr, */ byte = 2; - rc = i2c_read(dev_addr, 0x0, byte, (uint8_t *)&hdr_read, 4); - if (rc) - return rc; + /* + * Skip checking result here since this could be a valid i2c read fail + * on some boards that use 1 byte addressing. + * We must allow for fall through to check the data if 1 byte + * addressing works + */ + (void)i2c_read(dev_addr, 0x0, byte, (uint8_t *)&hdr_read, 4); /* Corrupted data??? */ if (hdr_read != header) {
Due to supply chain issues, we are starting to see a mixture of eeprom usage including the smaller 7-bit addressing eeproms such as 24c04 used for eeproms. These eeproms don't respond well to 2 byte addressing and fail the read operation. We do have a check to ensure that we are reading the alternate addressing size, however the valid failure prevents us from checking at 1 byte anymore. Rectify the same by falling through and depend on header data comparison to ensure that we have valid data. Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> --- board/ti/common/board_detect.c | 22 +++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)