Hi,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:33:18PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> >>> @@ -587,9 +587,9 @@ static int omap_i2c_xfer_msg(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
> >>> goto err_i2c_init;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - /* We have an error */
> >>> - if (dev->cmd_err & (OMAP_I2C_STAT_AL | OMAP_I2C_STAT_R
Hi
On 10/25/2012 12:10 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 04:41:11PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On 10/22/2012 11:46 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> It's impossible to have Arbitration Lost,
>>> Read Overflow, and Tranmist Underflow all
>>> asserted at the same
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 04:41:11PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 10/22/2012 11:46 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > It's impossible to have Arbitration Lost,
> > Read Overflow, and Tranmist Underflow all
> > asserted at the same time.
> >
> > Those error conditions are mutually exclu
Hi
On 10/22/2012 11:46 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> It's impossible to have Arbitration Lost,
> Read Overflow, and Tranmist Underflow all
> asserted at the same time.
>
> Those error conditions are mutually exclusive
> so what the code should be doing, instead, is
> check each error flag separataly.
It's impossible to have Arbitration Lost,
Read Overflow, and Tranmist Underflow all
asserted at the same time.
Those error conditions are mutually exclusive
so what the code should be doing, instead, is
check each error flag separataly.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-oma
