Dear Lucas,
On 04.05.2016 16:38, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Christian Ruppert
> wrote:
>> Dear Lucas,
>>
>> On 22.04.2016 17:19, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>> CC'ing Christian.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM,
Dear Lucas,
On 04.05.2016 16:38, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Christian Ruppert
> wrote:
>> Dear Lucas,
>>
>> On 22.04.2016 17:19, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>> CC'ing Christian.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
>>> wrote:
>
Hi Christian,
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> Dear Lucas,
>
> On 22.04.2016 17:19, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> CC'ing Christian.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
>> wrote:
>>> Disabling the
Hi Christian,
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> Dear Lucas,
>
> On 22.04.2016 17:19, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> CC'ing Christian.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
>> wrote:
>>> Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
Dear Lucas,
On 22.04.2016 17:19, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> CC'ing Christian.
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
> wrote:
>> Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
>> other devices doing small transfers at a high rate.
Dear Lucas,
On 22.04.2016 17:19, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> CC'ing Christian.
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
> wrote:
>> Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
>> other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
>>
On 04/25/2016 06:04 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On 04/25/2016 08:51 AM, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
[ ... ]
@@ -413,8 +416,16 @@ static void i2c_dw_xfer_init(struct dw_i2c_dev
*dev)
struct i2c_msg *msgs = dev->msgs;
u32 ic_con, ic_tar = 0;
-/* Disable the adapter */
-
On 04/25/2016 06:04 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On 04/25/2016 08:51 AM, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
[ ... ]
@@ -413,8 +416,16 @@ static void i2c_dw_xfer_init(struct dw_i2c_dev
*dev)
struct i2c_msg *msgs = dev->msgs;
u32 ic_con, ic_tar = 0;
-/* Disable the adapter */
-
On 04/25/2016 08:51 AM, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
[ ... ]
@@ -413,8 +416,16 @@ static void i2c_dw_xfer_init(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
struct i2c_msg *msgs = dev->msgs;
u32 ic_con, ic_tar = 0;
-/* Disable the adapter */
-__i2c_dw_enable(dev, false);
+if (dev->enabled) {
+
On 04/25/2016 08:51 AM, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
[ ... ]
@@ -413,8 +416,16 @@ static void i2c_dw_xfer_init(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
struct i2c_msg *msgs = dev->msgs;
u32 ic_con, ic_tar = 0;
-/* Disable the adapter */
-__i2c_dw_enable(dev, false);
+if (dev->enabled) {
+
On 04/22/2016 06:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled again.
During the transfer
On 04/22/2016 06:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled again.
During the transfer
CC'ing Christian.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:
> Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
> other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
> transfer rate a lot since each of them have to
CC'ing Christian.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:
> Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
> other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
> transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
>
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled again.
During the transfer init we check the status register for no activity
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled again.
During the transfer init we check the status register for no activity
On 2016-04-07 19:28, De Marchi, Lucas wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 15:37 +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> Dear Lucas,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply but I had to put our test environment back
>> together to check this patch. I'll keep it around for a while in case
>> you
On 2016-04-07 19:28, De Marchi, Lucas wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 15:37 +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> Dear Lucas,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply but I had to put our test environment back
>> together to check this patch. I'll keep it around for a while in case
>> you
Hi
On 04/01/2016 05:47 AM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
From: Lucas De Marchi
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait
Hi
On 04/01/2016 05:47 AM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
From: Lucas De Marchi
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled
Hi Christian,
On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 15:37 +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Dear Lucas,
>
> Sorry for the late reply but I had to put our test environment back
> together to check this patch. I'll keep it around for a while in case
> you have further iterations to test.
np, I'll try to iterate
Hi Christian,
On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 15:37 +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Dear Lucas,
>
> Sorry for the late reply but I had to put our test environment back
> together to check this patch. I'll keep it around for a while in case
> you have further iterations to test.
np, I'll try to iterate
Dear Lucas,
Sorry for the late reply but I had to put our test environment back
together to check this patch. I'll keep it around for a while in case
you have further iterations to test.
On 2016-04-01 04:47, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> From: Lucas De Marchi
>
> Disabling
Dear Lucas,
Sorry for the late reply but I had to put our test environment back
together to check this patch. I'll keep it around for a while in case
you have further iterations to test.
On 2016-04-01 04:47, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> From: Lucas De Marchi
>
> Disabling the adapter after each
From: Lucas De Marchi
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled again.
It was done in order
From: Lucas De Marchi
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled again.
It was done in order to avoid the adapter to
26 matches
Mail list logo