Hi Jean, On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 03:38:22PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Manuel, > > 1* It looks to me like there are other error conditions which also > cause the driver to leave without issuing a stop condition on the bus: > if not all bytes of a write are acked by the target slave (in > i2c_write) or if the master receives less bytes than expected (in > i2c_read). I understand these are less likely to happen than the quick > write case which bit you, but shouldn't these bugs be fixed as well? Hm, didn't think about those (because I didn't hit them yet) I'll fix them too of course. (I even started a complete rewrite of this driver [using IRQ and DMA instead of polling] a few months back but got stuck and instead fixed the bug that annoyed me the most) > 2* In i2c_write and i2c_read, the stop bit is always sent together with > the last byte, while your new code sends the stop bit on its own after > the address byte. Is it OK? Well, no. However the quick probe does an i2c read IIRC so it should be safe. I'll fix that too. > I am wondering if your code isn't sending > an extra (0) byte after the address when asked to send a zero-byte > message. That would be bad. Do you have a bus analyzer or scope to > check what exactly is being sent on the bus in this case? Yes I have a scope. I'll improve the driver some more and then check the actual data sent over the wires. Thank you for your review, much appreciated! Manuel Lauss
