On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:42:40AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-21 09:21, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2015-10-20 15:27, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>> On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>
On 2015-10-21 09:21, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-20 15:27, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On
On 2015-10-20 15:27, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On
On 2015-10-20 15:27, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:42:40AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-21 09:21, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2015-10-20 15:27, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>> On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>
On 2015-10-21 09:21, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-20 15:27, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>> On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>> On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>
On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>> On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> Le
On 2015-10-19 10:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:08:42AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>> On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> Le
On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
> On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches
On 2015-10-16 01:47, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
> On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches
On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
>>> Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> From: Cyrille Pitchen
>
> In
On 2015-10-14 07:43, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
>>> Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> From: Cyrille Pitchen
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> > Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
> >> On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >>> From: Cyrille Pitchen
> >>>
> >>> In some cases a NACK interrupt may be pending in the
On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
>> On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>> From: Cyrille Pitchen
>>>
>>> In some cases a NACK interrupt may be pending in the Status Register (SR)
>>> as a result of a previous transfer. However
Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
> On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>> From: Cyrille Pitchen
>>
>> In some cases a NACK interrupt may be pending in the Status Register (SR)
>> as a result of a previous transfer. However at91_do_twi_transfer() did not
>> read the SR to clear
On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> From: Cyrille Pitchen
>
> In some cases a NACK interrupt may be pending in the Status Register (SR)
> as a result of a previous transfer. However at91_do_twi_transfer() did not
> read the SR to clear pending interruptions before starting a new
From: Cyrille Pitchen
In some cases a NACK interrupt may be pending in the Status Register (SR)
as a result of a previous transfer. However at91_do_twi_transfer() did not
read the SR to clear pending interruptions before starting a new transfer.
Hence a NACK interrupt rose as soon as it was
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> > Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
> >> On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> >>> From: Cyrille Pitchen
> >>>
> >>> In some cases a NACK
On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> From: Cyrille Pitchen
>
> In some cases a NACK interrupt may be pending in the Status Register (SR)
> as a result of a previous transfer. However at91_do_twi_transfer() did not
> read the SR to clear pending interruptions
From: Cyrille Pitchen
In some cases a NACK interrupt may be pending in the Status Register (SR)
as a result of a previous transfer. However at91_do_twi_transfer() did not
read the SR to clear pending interruptions before starting a new transfer.
Hence a NACK interrupt
Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
> On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>> From: Cyrille Pitchen
>>
>> In some cases a NACK interrupt may be pending in the Status Register (SR)
>> as a result of a previous transfer. However at91_do_twi_transfer() did
On 2015-10-13 18:47, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> Le 13/10/2015 17:19, Peter Rosin a écrit :
>> On 2015-10-13 16:21, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>> From: Cyrille Pitchen
>>>
>>> In some cases a NACK interrupt may be pending in the Status Register (SR)
>>> as a result of a
26 matches
Mail list logo