[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1332960542_131144@CP5-2952>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:48:51 +0100
From: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Yufeng Shen <miletus@...omium.org>,
Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7 v6] drm/i915/intel_i2c: use WAIT cycle, not STOP
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:26:36 +0800, Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org> wrote:
> The i915 is only able to generate a STOP cycle (i.e. finalize an i2c
> transaction) during a DATA or WAIT phase. In other words, the
> controller rejects a STOP requested as part of the first transaction in a
> sequence.
The original docs have "this can only cause a STOP to be generated if a
GMBUS cycle is generated, the GMBUS is currently in a data phase, or it
is in a WAIT phase."
So from that it seems STOP | INDEX? | WAIT is always a valid
combination and is explicitly listed in the register set.
I defer to actual testing though ;)
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists