On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 04:17:09PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 08:57:04AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> > Ah, so 'make the driver work on i.MX51' is a good statement which should >> >> >> > be part of the commit message. >> >> >> Well, maybe I can mention it. >> >> >> But I think the good point is to present what you modified, not the side effect. >> >> > >> >> > It is not the side effect but the intention :) As no code is changed without a >> >> > need, the reason really should be in the patch description. >> >> No, it's not intention. I'm just trying to make the controller work in >> >> a right way. Without this patch, maybe some other fast cpus have >> >> problem too. I just tested mx31 and mx51. I will add "Without this >> >> patch, i2c on some fast SoCs (for example imx51) will not work". Is it >> >> ok for you? >> > >> > Please remember that we do not have i.MX51 support in mainline, so this >> > is irrelevant atm. >> So I don't need to meantion mx51? "Without this patch, i2c on some >> fast SoCs will not work" is all right? > > Sounds good to me! > >> > At the moment we have a driver which is not multi master capable. >> > Looking at the datasheet the change you do seems not enough to change >> > this. So we should take a patch which changes something from which you >> > think it might be needed? And you don't even have the details at hand? >> > >> > No. >> Ok, It seems I have no reason to keep the busy wait before START. >> Wolfram, do you agree to remove the busy wait? > > If somebody really needs multi-master and is able to test it, then it can be > reimplemented (but as said, this needs a lot more changes). Have to have a > closer look though, if it may detect a stalled bus. > >> I saw you submmited the original driver. > > I helped in getting it accepted, but the commit is mainly from Darius. > > Regards, > > Wolfram > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkrGCfoACgkQD27XaX1/VRtdtQCfQY/HExUvAyQbilCV+F83UZZ4 > /ZQAnicn78e46mlqE3Z/9xXFMW8B2QCA > =qYV9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Let me sumerize the comments: 1. Sascha, Wolfram: tell why add IBB check in commit message. Add something like "Without this patch, i2c on some fast SoCs will not work". Agree 2. Sascha: Remove IBB check before START. Agree. 3. Andrew: Optimize the busy wait loop. Agree. Thanks Richard -- 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
