[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45V0Ya0UdBZMCoazvE0Sh33F3_oMb84-kLXn1qH0h=b3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:44:40 -0700
From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, mchehab@...nel.org,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 3/4] i2c: aspeed: added driver for Aspeed I2C
Sorry, went on vacation and then forgot about our conversion.
>> the struct i2c_bus_recovery_info. Is i2c_generic_scl_recovery supposed
>> to be part of the user interface, or is it just intended to help put the
>> main recovery function together?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand the question. What do you mean?
>
What I meant is that it looks like the only use of it is putting
together a default
recovery function, but I was wondering if it is fair to use it on its own.
Basically what I was asking is whether I could use i2c_generic_scl_recovery
in the case where SCL is hung.
I think I have a pretty good idea of what to do, I should probably just put
together an RFC patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists