Esben Haabendal <esbenhaabendal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 15/05/2009 14:52:28: > > Your new patch also does not work. > > Have you tested it? sure, works fine. I haven't stressed it too much though. > > I already tried something very much what you sent here, I believe the > only difference was that I named the "last" variable "stop". I also > tried several other aproaches, and none of them worked. I would > appreciate not to have to test all of them seperately again through > this mailing list ;-) :), point taken. > > Anyway, your patch also is in conflict with the MPC8360ERM. The spec > specifies that a repeated start must follow an ACK, and not a "NO > ACK". Ouch, will have to check too, but later. > > When doing a repeated start after a NO ACK, the slave does not ACK the > address (I get an RXAK). When doing as specified, ACK'ing the last > byte read and then doing a repeated START, i2c_wait() fails due to > CSR_MCF bit missing. I thought it would be possible to find somewhere > to do a dummy read to get around this, but failed to do so without > breaking something else. > > Could we go forward with my initial patch, and then continue the work > on this repeated START approach for future releases? Yes, go ahead. Jocke -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
