Dear Lucas,
"De Marchi, Lucas" wrote on 24.06.2015
14:56:19:
> On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 14:27 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:36:43AM +0200,
christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrot
> > e:
> > > Dear Lucas,
> > >
> > > Lucas De Marchi wrote on 23.06.2015
19:02:03:
> > >
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56:19PM +, De Marchi, Lucas wrote:
> Yeah, but it would be bad to ignore the problem as well. The way it is now
> kills any possibility of using DW controller for reading sensors like
> gyroscope, accelerometer, barometer that have higher sampling rate etc. I'll
>
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 14:27 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:36:43AM +0200, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrot
> e:
> > Dear Lucas,
> >
> > Lucas De Marchi wrote on 23.06.2015 19:02:03:
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:36:43AM +0200, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrote:
> Dear Lucas,
>
> Lucas De Marchi wrote on 23.06.2015 19:02:03:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Christian Ruppert/ALi_GVA/ALi wrote on 10.06.2015 17:05:16:
> > [...]
> > > The
Dear Lucas,
Lucas De Marchi wrote on 23.06.2015 19:02:03:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Christian Ruppert/ALi_GVA/ALi wrote on 10.06.2015 17:05:16:
> [...]
> > The result is not very encouraging: Out of five (identical) designware
i2c
> > controllers we have on
Dear Lucas,
Lucas De Marchi lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote on 23.06.2015 19:02:03:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrote:
Hello,
Christian Ruppert/ALi_GVA/ALi wrote on 10.06.2015 17:05:16:
[...]
The result is not very encouraging: Out of five (identical)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:36:43AM +0200, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrote:
Dear Lucas,
Lucas De Marchi lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote on 23.06.2015 19:02:03:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrote:
Hello,
Christian Ruppert/ALi_GVA/ALi wrote on
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 14:27 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:36:43AM +0200, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrot
e:
Dear Lucas,
Lucas De Marchi lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote on 23.06.2015 19:02:03:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, christian.rupp...@alitech.com
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56:19PM +, De Marchi, Lucas wrote:
Yeah, but it would be bad to ignore the problem as well. The way it is now
kills any possibility of using DW controller for reading sensors like
gyroscope, accelerometer, barometer that have higher sampling rate etc. I'll
try
Dear Lucas,
De Marchi, Lucas lucas.demar...@intel.com wrote on 24.06.2015
14:56:19:
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 14:27 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:36:43AM +0200,
christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrot
e:
Dear Lucas,
Lucas De Marchi lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Christian Ruppert/ALi_GVA/ALi wrote on 10.06.2015 17:05:16:
>> Mika Westerberg wrote on 10.06.
>> 2015 09:07:22:
>> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:29:01PM -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> > > Hi Mika,
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:51
Hello,
Christian Ruppert/ALi_GVA/ALi wrote on 10.06.2015 17:05:16:
> Mika Westerberg wrote on 10.06.
> 2015 09:07:22:
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:29:01PM -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > Hi Mika,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Mika Westerberg
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun
Hello,
Christian Ruppert/ALi_GVA/ALi wrote on 10.06.2015 17:05:16:
Mika Westerberg mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com wrote on 10.06.
2015 09:07:22:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:29:01PM -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Hi Mika,
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Mika Westerberg
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrote:
Hello,
Christian Ruppert/ALi_GVA/ALi wrote on 10.06.2015 17:05:16:
Mika Westerberg mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com wrote on 10.06.
2015 09:07:22:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:29:01PM -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 07:45:00PM -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Hi Mika,
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Mika Westerberg
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int dw_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
> >>
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 07:45:00PM -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Hi Mika,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Mika Westerberg
mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int dw_i2c_resume(struct
Hi Mika,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Mika Westerberg
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int dw_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
>> clk_prepare_enable(i_dev->clk);
>>
>> if (!i_dev->pm_runtime_disabled)
Hi Mika,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Mika Westerberg
mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int dw_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
clk_prepare_enable(i_dev-clk);
if
Hi,
On 06/10, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrote:
> Mika Westerberg wrote on 10.06.2015
> 09:07:22:
> > My concern is that this patch might break some non-Intel platform. It
> > would be nice if someone (Christian?) could try this out.
>
> Ouch, this one brings back painful memories. Take a
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:05:16PM +0200, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrote:
>We should understand why the controller was disabled after successful
>transfers in the first place, however. Maybe some quirk with older
>versions of the hardware? Mika, do you have any memories about
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:05:16PM +0200, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrote:
We should understand why the controller was disabled after successful
transfers in the first place, however. Maybe some quirk with older
versions of the hardware? Mika, do you have any memories about this?
Hi,
On 06/10, christian.rupp...@alitech.com wrote:
Mika Westerberg mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com wrote on 10.06.2015
09:07:22:
My concern is that this patch might break some non-Intel platform. It
would be nice if someone (Christian?) could try this out.
Ouch, this one brings back
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
> @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int dw_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
> clk_prepare_enable(i_dev->clk);
>
> if (!i_dev->pm_runtime_disabled)
> - i2c_dw_init(i_dev);
> +
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:29:01PM -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Hi Mika,
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Mika Westerberg
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: Fabio Mello
> >>
> >> According to documentation and tests,
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int dw_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
clk_prepare_enable(i_dev-clk);
if (!i_dev-pm_runtime_disabled)
- i2c_dw_init(i_dev);
+ i2c_dw_enable(i_dev);
This
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:29:01PM -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Hi Mika,
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Mika Westerberg
mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Fabio Mello fabio.me...@intel.com
According
Hi Mika,
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Mika Westerberg
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Fabio Mello
>>
>> According to documentation and tests, initialization is not
>> necessary on module resume, since the controller keeps its state
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Fabio Mello
>
> According to documentation and tests, initialization is not
> necessary on module resume, since the controller keeps its state
> between disable/enable. Change the target address is also allowed.
>
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Fabio Mello fabio.me...@intel.com
According to documentation and tests, initialization is not
necessary on module resume, since the controller keeps its state
between disable/enable. Change the target address is
Hi Mika,
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Mika Westerberg
mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:50:28PM -0300, lucas.de.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Fabio Mello fabio.me...@intel.com
According to documentation and tests, initialization is not
necessary on module
From: Fabio Mello
According to documentation and tests, initialization is not
necessary on module resume, since the controller keeps its state
between disable/enable. Change the target address is also allowed.
So, this patch replaces the initialization on module resume with a
simple enable, and
From: Fabio Mello fabio.me...@intel.com
According to documentation and tests, initialization is not
necessary on module resume, since the controller keeps its state
between disable/enable. Change the target address is also allowed.
So, this patch replaces the initialization on module resume with
32 matches
Mail list logo
