The 'if (i)' because the STOP condition should only occur after the
first message is transmitted (and excepted for the last message,
because there's already a STOP outside the for loop). I thought it was
cleaner than 'if(i < num - 1)' at the bottom of the for loop.
Sorry for the missing Signed-Off... :-/ Should I submit another patch?
On jeudi 20 juin 2013 21:39:16, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 02:37:17PM +0200, Renaud Cerrato wrote:
>> Current i2c bit algo implementation doesn't actually support I2C_M_STOP flag
>> despite I2C_FUNC_PROTOCOL_MANGLING functionnality.
>
> Signed-Off is missing :( Please run checkpatch.pl before sending
> patches!
>
> What was your testcase?
>
>> ---
>> drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-bit.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-bit.c
>> b/drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-bit.c
>> index fad22b0..00446a6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-bit.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-bit.c
>> @@ -557,6 +557,12 @@ static int bit_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *i2c_adap,
>> for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
>> pmsg = &msgs[i];
>> nak_ok = pmsg->flags & I2C_M_IGNORE_NAK;
>> + if (pmsg->flags & I2C_M_STOP) {
>> + if (i) {
>
> Why 'if (i)'?
>
>> + bit_dbg(3, &i2c_adap->dev, "emitting stop
>> condition\n");
>> + i2c_stop(adap);
>> + }
>> + }
>> if (!(pmsg->flags & I2C_M_NOSTART)) {
>> if (i) {
>> bit_dbg(3, &i2c_adap->dev, "emitting "
>> --
>> 1.7.2.5
>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
