On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 04:14:13PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:54:47 -0400, Jean-François Dagenais wrote:
> > Salut Jean, merci de participer!
> >
> > On 2013-05-13, at 4:11 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Guenter is right. You never have to disable auto-detection
On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:54:47 -0400, Jean-François Dagenais wrote:
> Salut Jean, merci de participer!
>
> On 2013-05-13, at 4:11 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>
> >
> > Guenter is right. You never have to disable auto-detection in the slave
> > drivers (jc42 etc.) All these slave drivers do is claim "I
Salut Jean, merci de participer!
On 2013-05-13, at 4:11 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>
> Guenter is right. You never have to disable auto-detection in the slave
> drivers (jc42 etc.) All these slave drivers do is claim "I _can_ do
> auto-detection", not "I _will_ do auto-detection." It's always up to
Salut Jean-François, hi Guenter,
Sorry for jumping in a little late, I am just back from vacation.
On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:38:28 -0400, Jean-François Dagenais wrote:
> On 2013-05-08, at 11:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Is one of the I2C adapter drivers your own ? If so, you can disable
> > auto-
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:38:28AM -0400, Jean-François Dagenais wrote:
>
> On 2013-05-08, at 11:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > Guess the real conclusion is that one should avoid two active masters
> > in the first place if possible.
>
> I agree, I can't think of any benefits worth the troubl
On 2013-05-08, at 11:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Guess the real conclusion is that one should avoid two active masters
> in the first place if possible.
I agree, I can't think of any benefits worth the trouble.
> Is one of the I2C adapter drivers your own ? If so, you can disable
> auto-dete
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:50:44PM -0400, Jean-François Dagenais wrote:
>
> On 2013-05-08, at 13:54, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Isn't it the point of having multiple masters on the same bus, that each of
> > them can manage the same devices ?
>
> I wouldn't think so. You mention why in
On 2013-05-08, at 13:54, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> [...]
> Isn't it the point of having multiple masters on the same bus, that each of
> them can manage the same devices ?
I wouldn't think so. You mention why in your last paragraph and I totally see
and agree with that. So that is not my intention
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Jean-François Dagenais wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've read the discussion on multimaster and I have to agree with Uwe about
> masters doing the arbitration (and retry). However, there's another issue
> which one quickly discovers when adding a second master o
Hi all,
I've read the discussion on multimaster and I have to agree with Uwe about
masters doing the arbitration (and retry). However, there's another issue which
one quickly discovers when adding a second master on a physical i2c bus.
Here's the scenario: Using driver jc42 which adds a "detect
10 matches
Mail list logo
