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
> tr
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,
> > > >
> > > > Chris
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 res
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 m
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 AM
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
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)
> >>
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,
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 lo
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?
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)
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, initializ
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.
>
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
