On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, David Brownell wrote: > ... just to recap this before I scrub old mail from my mbox: > > On Friday 26 September 2008, Trent Piepho wrote: > > > It's not a question of the I2C adapter supporting it. ?It's a > > > question of whether there's an SMBALERT# signal on your board, > > > which can generate an interrupt. ?If it can, this patch has an > > > IRQ handler which implements the SMBus alert protocol. ?Think > > > of it as sideband signaling ... unknown to that adapter. > > > > If nothing is alerting, then the read from the ARA address won't get an ack. > > Absolutely nothing you've said makes a real argument against > providing support for SMBALERT#. Which isn't surprising, since I wasn't trying to make an argument against providing support for SMBALERT#. I was making an argument for why it might be necessary to do something else.
