On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 06:08:43PM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > On Friday 10 July 2015 01:41 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 12:54:46AM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > >>Normally i2c controller works as master, so slave addr is not needed, or it > >>will impact some slave device (eg. ST NFC chip) i2c accesses, because it has > >>the same i2c address with controller. > > > >Just to make sure: Does it? As I read the code, slave interrupts are > >enabled later only when slave mode is selected? Is that a HW bug? And if > >so, can't the code just be moved into this #ifdef block later? > > > > Yes we could, infact I thought about it; > but I would break recommended sequence here. And did you set the "own slave address" to a value which one of your existing i2c slaves also has (without enabling slave mode)? Did it disturb communication?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
