On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 07:55:31PM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > On Friday 10 July 2015 07:44 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >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? > > > > Since slave and master mode are mutual exclusive, > I did not try this. Ehrm, what I meant was. Did you see the issue mentioned in the above commit message? Can you reproduce it? You don't need to enable slave mode for that, no?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
