On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:39:48PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 07:18:47PM +0800, Mark Brown wrote:
> > A read is typically implemented as a write of the register address
> > followed by a read of the value, usually with the ability to free the
> > bus in between. If two d
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 07:18:47PM +0800, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:13:29PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:21:36PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > also get things like read operations which appear as multiple
> > > transactions on the I2C bus so req
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:13:29PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:21:36PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> > also get things like read operations which appear as multiple
> > transactions on the I2C bus so require something higher level than what
> > multi-master provides.
> I
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:21:36PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:06:49AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 12/13/2012 10:50 PM, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote:
>
> > > +The first should be an output, and is used to claim the I2C bus,
> > > +the second should be an in
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Mark Brown
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:32:01PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not convinced on the design of this protocol. It won't scale beyond
>>> 2 bus masters and it seems very specific
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:32:01PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced on the design of this protocol. It won't scale beyond
>> 2 bus masters and it seems very specific to the design of a specific
>> piece of hardware. I don't thin
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:32:01PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced on the design of this protocol. It won't scale beyond
>> 2 bus masters and it seems very specific to the design of a specific
>> piece of hardware. I don't thin
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:32:01PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> I'm not convinced on the design of this protocol. It won't scale beyond
> 2 bus masters and it seems very specific to the design of a specific
> piece of hardware. I don't think it is mature enough to bake into the
I ought to point o
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:20:53 +0530, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
wrote:
> The arbitrator is a general purpose function which uses two GPIOs to
> communicate with another device to claim/release a bus.
>
> i2c_transfer()
> if adapter->gpio_arbit
> i2c_bus_claim();
>
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:06:49AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 10:50 PM, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote:
> > +The first should be an output, and is used to claim the I2C bus,
> > +the second should be an input, and signals that the other side (Client)
> > +wants to claim the bus.
On 12/13/2012 10:50 PM, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote:
> The arbitrator is a general purpose function which uses two GPIOs to
> communicate with another device to claim/release a bus.
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/arbitrator-i2c.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2
The arbitrator is a general purpose function which uses two GPIOs to
communicate with another device to claim/release a bus.
i2c_transfer()
if adapter->gpio_arbit
i2c_bus_claim();
__i2c_transfer();
i2c_bus_release();
Signed-off-by: S
12 matches
Mail list logo
