On 18.01.2018 00:23, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:40:36AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 15.01.2018 21:53, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 03:30:07PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >>>> HSI2C_MASTER_ST_LOSE state is not documented properly, extensive tests >>>> show that hardware is usually able to recover from this state without >>>> interrupting the transfer. On the other side enforcing transfer repetition >>>> in such case does not help in many situations, especially on busy systems >>>> and causes -EAGAIN and -ETIMEOUT errors. Moreover documentation says that >>>> such state can be caused by slave clock stretching, and should not be treated >>>> as an error. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Can this be applied independently of my comments to patch 2? >>> >> Yes, please apply it alone. I will continue work on patch 2. > I just thought it might be nice to have a comment where you removed the > code summarizing your findings. So we will remember about this in the > future. Makes sense? > Forgive me delayed response - holiday. The code removed was something extra, so I am not sure if it is necessary to add comment to the code, git log should be enough. Anyway I will post patches dealing with HSI2C_MASTER_ST_LOSE on transaction start very soon, so I can add relevant comment there. Regards Andrzej
