Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:50:13 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:22:36 +0200, Ivo Manca wrote: >>> Great and thanks. Am really curious about the stability of this code :) >> I'm hitting the first problems, with SMBus block transactions. They >> fail on my ICH3 with use_irq=1. That's strange because these >> transactions shouldn't make use of interrupts on the ICH3, but I still >> see the IRQ handler being called 3 times, and then the transaction >> times out. I'm debugging this now. > > OK, I see what's going on. On this laptop, IRQ 9 is used by many > things, not just SMBus. So the interrupt handler keeps being called even > without SMBus activity or with polled-based SMBus activity. That's what > happens during SMBus block transactions: the interrupt handler is > called but not for us. However the interrupt handler thinks it is > called by us and clears the status register value. This causes the > polled-based loop to wait forever: by the time it looks for the status > register value, it has been cleared. > > So we need to change the code in either of three ways: > * Drop support for byte-by-byte block transactions. > * Inhibit the interrupt handler during polled-based block transactions. > * Convert the byteb-by-byte block transaction code to use interrupts > instead of polling. > The latter would be cleaner, but that's also more work. >
Erm, is this testing with or without your merging of the status flags defines? Maybe that is causing this? Regards, Hans _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
