Hi Kuo-Jung,
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 08:59 +0800, Kuo-Jung Su wrote:
No it's a common misunderstanding, I also made the same mistake before.
Please check my bug fix for Faraday FTI2C010 I2C driver:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/294732/
The address should be rebuild inside the i2c driver
2013/11/29 Alexey Brodkin alexey.brod...@synopsys.com:
Hi Kuo-Jung,
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 08:59 +0800, Kuo-Jung Su wrote:
No it's a common misunderstanding, I also made the same mistake before.
Please check my bug fix for Faraday FTI2C010 I2C driver:
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 17:32 +0800, Kuo-Jung Su wrote:
Unfortunately I still cannot agree with you.
In my opinion I2C driver has nothing to do with current situation.
Yes, that's why I said the root cause is U-Boot's I2C model.
The address should never be rebuilt/reformated inside the I2C
2013/11/29 Alexey Brodkin alexey.brod...@synopsys.com:
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 17:32 +0800, Kuo-Jung Su wrote:
Unfortunately I still cannot agree with you.
In my opinion I2C driver has nothing to do with current situation.
Yes, that's why I said the root cause is U-Boot's I2C model.
The
On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 10:47 +0800, Kuo-Jung Su wrote:
From: Kuo-Jung Su dant...@faraday-tech.com
The local pointer of address (i.e., addr) only gets
referenced in SPI mode, and it won't be appropriate
to pass only 1 bytes addr[1] to i2c_read/i2c_write while
CONFIG_SYS_I2C_EEPROM_ADDR_LEN
2013/11/28 Alexey Brodkin alexey.brod...@synopsys.com:
On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 10:47 +0800, Kuo-Jung Su wrote:
From: Kuo-Jung Su dant...@faraday-tech.com
The local pointer of address (i.e., addr) only gets
referenced in SPI mode, and it won't be appropriate
to pass only 1 bytes addr[1] to
From: Kuo-Jung Su dant...@faraday-tech.com
The local pointer of address (i.e., addr) only gets
referenced in SPI mode, and it won't be appropriate
to pass only 1 bytes addr[1] to i2c_read/i2c_write while
CONFIG_SYS_I2C_EEPROM_ADDR_LEN 1.
To avoid ambiguity, this patch would drop the use of
7 matches
Mail list logo
