Hi Mark,
On 24 June 2010 22:05, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 24 Jun 2010, at 13:35, Naveen Krishna Ch <naveenkrishna.ch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On 24 June 2010 17:02, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:15:55AM +0530, Naveen Krishna Ch wrote:
> >>
> >>> Where should i be looking,
> >>
> >> I would suggest looking at the driver and comparing it with the
> >> datasheet.
> >>
> >>> Will changing the spin counts work?
> >>
> >> I'd expect this to be unlikely. Note that if we run out of spins we
> >> still go for the 1ms sleep that was being used originally so it's more
> >> likely that there's a bug in the chip when that register is being read
> >> (though this would be surprising) or some other change in your kernel is
> >> causing problems.
> >
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-s3c2410.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-s3c2410.c
> > @@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ static int s3c24xx_i2c_doxfer(struct s3c24xx_i2c *i2c,
> > /* first, try busy waiting briefly */
> > do {
> > iicstat = readl(i2c->regs + S3C2410_IICSTAT);
> > - } while ((iicstat & S3C2410_IICSTAT_START) && --spins);
> > + } while (--spins && (iicstat & S3C2410_IICSTAT_START));
> >
> > /* if that timed out sleep */
> > if (!spins) {
> >
> > Does the trick..
>
> That smells rather like a compiler bug to me - the two versions
> ought to be equivalent apart from the ordering of the comparisons.
I'm not sure, I'm using arm-2009q3 toolchain.
--
Shine bright,
(: Naveen Krishna Ch :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
