On 4 October 2012 15:17, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:02:26PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 4 October 2012 14:50, Uwe Kleine-König >> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> So, we actually need to do "Low-High" 9 times instead of "High-Low". >> >> So, initializing val to 0 should fix it? >> > I don't think this is enough. If you cut off the last half clock of the >> > first sequence above doing 9 times low-high isn't enough. So you have to >> > do high + 9x low-high to assert 9 full cycles. >> >> I am not cutting the last half clock. val is the variable which keeps >> track of value to be >> set on the line. I am asking to start from zero. > I meant the sequence that created the stall, not the one intending to > clear it. If you remove the last rising edge from that the SCL line is > initially low. But then, wouldn't only 8.5 cycles are enough? As with 8.5 cycles we will achieve 9 low-high cycles? I can't find you on IRC (#linaro on freenode). Want to finish this up quickly, so that i can send a fixup patch ASAP and get your reviewed-by :) -- viresh -- 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
