In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Wolfgang, I think you forgot this one.
Indeed. I missed that there were actually two very similar messages.
Thanks for pointing out.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Muni
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Some 86xx chips use CCB as the base clock for the I2C, and others used CCB/2.
> There is no pattern that can be used to determine which chips use which
> frequency, so the only way to determine is to look up the actual SOC
> designation and use the right
Wolfgang, I think you forgot this one.
Jon Loeliger wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 06:14 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>> Some 86xx chips use CCB as the base clock for the I2C, and others used
>>> CCB/2.
>>> There is no pattern that can be used to deter
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 06:14 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Some 86xx chips use CCB as the base clock for the I2C, and others used
> > CCB/2.
> > There is no pattern that can be used to determine which chips use which
> > frequency, so the only way to de
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Some 86xx chips use CCB as the base clock for the I2C, and others used CCB/2.
> There is no pattern that can be used to determine which chips use which
> frequency, so the only way to determine is to look up the actual SOC
> designation and use the right
Some 86xx chips use CCB as the base clock for the I2C, and others used CCB/2.
There is no pattern that can be used to determine which chips use which
frequency, so the only way to determine is to look up the actual SOC
designation and use the right value for that SOC.
Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <[E
