On 2/29/2012 5:22 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2012 06:53 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>> +static int i2c_gpio_recover_bus(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>> +{
>> + int tmp, val = 1;
>> + unsigned long delay = 1000000;
>> +
>> + tmp = gpio_request_one(adap->scl_gpio, GPIOF_DIR_OUT |
>> + GPIOF_INIT_LOW, "i2c-bus-recover");
>
> Should rename tmp to ret or status. tmp does not looks appropriate.
>
Ok.
>> + if (tmp< 0) {
>> + dev_warn(&adap->dev, "gpio request one fail: %d\n",
>> + adap->scl_gpio);
>> + return tmp;
>> + }
>> +
>> + delay /= adap->clock_rate * 2;
> Here delay is turning as micor sec and function used as the nano sec.
clock_rate is in KHz, mentioned in comment of clock_rate.
Makes sense now or am i missing something?
>> +
>> + for (tmp = 0; tmp< adap->clock_cnt * 2; tmp++, val = !val) {
>> + ndelay(delay);
> should be udelay()?
Please add blank lines before and after your comment. That makes
it more readable.
>> + gpio_set_value(adap->scl_gpio, val);
>
> I think it should check for the sda line for coming out of the loop.
> There may be possibility that we may not need 9 clock pulses.
>
I asked this in another mail, how to be sure that it will work.
>> + u8 scl_gpio;
> gpio can be more than 256. better to use int.
> Take scl_gpio_flag and use in the gpio_request_one.
Ok.
--
viresh
--
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
