Slow response, sorry. Happily, I'm actually done crossing oceans for a little bit... On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:55:16 +0200 Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@xxxxxx> wrote: > Jon, do you claim that 0x26 and 0x31 are essentially the same as the the GPIO ports? >From a programming point of view, yes. There may be some electrical differences. > After having a look at the relevant openchrome code (ViaI2C3): > http://openchrome.org/trac/browser/trunk/src/via_i2c.c > as well as VIAs X-Server (as far as I can decipher it) and assuming that this > code was tested I am confident that our code is broken (for example we never set > output enable back to 0). So I think we should just enable GPIO on that port as > I2C on it looks very broken anyway. I'm confused...you're talking about 26/31 still? I2c works fine on 0x31; that's how the via-camera driver talks to the sensor. > I plan to test whether a correct implementation can be done on top of GPIO. You could do that, but, if you look at what's there, that's essentially what's done now - it's a bitbanging driver. So I'm not quite sure what you would change. Sorry if I'm being slow. jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
