Hello Grygorii,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:31:22PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 11/26/2014 05:57 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >I don't understand your use of "query" in the subject and later in the
> >commit log. Do you mean "send"?
>
> will change to "generate". Ok?
yes that would be
On 11/26/2014 05:57 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
I don't understand your use of "query" in the subject and later in the
commit log. Do you mean "send"?
will change to "generate". Ok?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 03:59:50PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
According to I2C specification
Hello,
I don't understand your use of "query" in the subject and later in the
commit log. Do you mean "send"?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 03:59:50PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folows:
s/folows/follows/
Best regards
Uwe
--
According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folows:
"When SDA remains HIGH during this ninth clock pulse, this is defined as the Not
Acknowledge signal. The master can then generate either a STOP condition to
abort the transfer, or a repeated START condition to start a new
According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folows:
When SDA remains HIGH during this ninth clock pulse, this is defined as the Not
Acknowledge signal. The master can then generate either a STOP condition to
abort the transfer, or a repeated START condition to start a new
Hello,
I don't understand your use of query in the subject and later in the
commit log. Do you mean send?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 03:59:50PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folows:
s/folows/follows/
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix
On 11/26/2014 05:57 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
I don't understand your use of query in the subject and later in the
commit log. Do you mean send?
will change to generate. Ok?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 03:59:50PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
According to I2C specification the NACK
Hello Grygorii,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:31:22PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 11/26/2014 05:57 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
I don't understand your use of query in the subject and later in the
commit log. Do you mean send?
will change to generate. Ok?
yes that would be better
Hello Grygorii,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:34:35PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 10:33 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > A call to .master_xfer with a message sequence implicitly expects ACKs
> > from the slave and doesn't tell anything about what should be done on a
> > NAK. So
Hi Uwe,
On 11/23/2014 10:33 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 05:33:37PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> On 11/21/2014 03:10 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:48:57PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
Hi Uwe,
On 11/23/2014 10:33 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 05:33:37PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 11/21/2014 03:10 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:48:57PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
diff
Hello Grygorii,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:34:35PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 11/23/2014 10:33 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
A call to .master_xfer with a message sequence implicitly expects ACKs
from the slave and doesn't tell anything about what should be done on a
NAK. So IMHO you
Hello Grygorii,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 05:33:37PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 11/21/2014 03:10 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:48:57PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> diff --git
Hello Grygorii,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 05:33:37PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 11/21/2014 03:10 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:48:57PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
diff --git
Hi Uwe,
On 11/21/2014 03:10 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:48:57PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
index 9bbfb8f..2cef115
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:48:57PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
> >> b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
> >> index 9bbfb8f..2cef115 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
>
Hi Uwe,
On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folowing:
> s/folowing/follows/
>
>> "When SDA remains HIGH during this ninth clock pulse, this is defined
Hi Uwe,
On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folowing:
s/folowing/follows/
When SDA remains HIGH during this ninth clock pulse, this is defined as the
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:48:57PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
index 9bbfb8f..2cef115 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
+++
Hi Uwe,
On 11/21/2014 03:10 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:48:57PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:19 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
index 9bbfb8f..2cef115 100644
---
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folowing:
s/folowing/follows/
> "When SDA remains HIGH during this ninth clock pulse, this is defined as the
> Not
> Acknowledge signal. The master can then
According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folowing:
"When SDA remains HIGH during this ninth clock pulse, this is defined as the Not
Acknowledge signal. The master can then gene rate either a STOP condition to
abort the transfer, or a repeated START condition to start a new
According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folowing:
When SDA remains HIGH during this ninth clock pulse, this is defined as the Not
Acknowledge signal. The master can then gene rate either a STOP condition to
abort the transfer, or a repeated START condition to start a new
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
According to I2C specification the NACK should be handled as folowing:
s/folowing/follows/
When SDA remains HIGH during this ninth clock pulse, this is defined as the
Not
Acknowledge signal. The master can then gene
24 matches
Mail list logo
