Hi Keith,
Sorry for the late reply.
On Sunday 29 January 2012 02:26:25 am Keith Packard wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:07:09 +0100, Jean Delvare
> wrote:
> > A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps.
> > I2C devices can typically operate faster than this, 50 kbps should
Hi Keith,
Sorry for the late reply.
On Sunday 29 January 2012 02:26:25 am Keith Packard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:07:09 +0100, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de
wrote:
A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps.
I2C devices can typically operate faster than this, 50
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:07:09 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. I2C
> devices can typically operate faster than this, 50 kbps should be fine
> for all devices (and compliant devices can always stretch the clock if
> needed.)
>
> FWIW,
A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. I2C
devices can typically operate faster than this, 50 kbps should be fine
for all devices (and compliant devices can always stretch the clock if
needed.)
FWIW, the vast majority of framebuffer drivers set udelay to 10
already. So
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:07 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. I2C
> devices can typically operate faster than this, 50 kbps should be fine
> for all devices (and compliant devices can always stretch the clock if
> needed.)
>
> FWIW, the
A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. I2C
devices can typically operate faster than this, 50 kbps should be fine
for all devices (and compliant devices can always stretch the clock if
needed.)
FWIW, the vast majority of framebuffer drivers set udelay to 10
already. So
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:07 AM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. I2C
devices can typically operate faster than this, 50 kbps should be fine
for all devices (and compliant devices can always stretch the clock if
needed.)
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:07:09 +0100, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. I2C
devices can typically operate faster than this, 50 kbps should be fine
for all devices (and compliant devices can always stretch the clock if
needed.)
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:38, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > On Friday 21 October 2011 08:05:48 pm Alex Deucher wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jean Delvare
> >> > Does anyone know at which speed hardware I2C
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:38, Alex Deucher alexdeuc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Friday 21 October 2011 08:05:48 pm Alex Deucher wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de
Does anyone
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Friday 21 October 2011 08:05:48 pm Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jean Delvare
>> > Does anyone know at which speed hardware I2C engines are running
>> > the DDC bus on various graphics cards?
>>
>>
Hi Alex,
On Friday 21 October 2011 08:05:48 pm Alex Deucher wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de
Does anyone know at which speed hardware I2C engines are running
the DDC bus on various graphics cards?
IIRC, we generally target the radeon hw i2c engines to
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Friday 21 October 2011 08:05:48 pm Alex Deucher wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de
Does anyone know at which speed hardware I2C engines are running
the DDC bus on various
Hi Alex,
On Friday 21 October 2011 08:05:48 pm Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jean Delvare
> > Does anyone know at which speed hardware I2C engines are running
> > the DDC bus on various graphics cards?
>
> IIRC, we generally target the radeon hw i2c engines to run at
Hi Alan,
On Friday 21 October 2011 03:32:44 pm Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:08:30 +0200
>
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. A
> > value of 40 as the nouveau driver has is even slower at 12.5 kbps.
> > I2C devices can
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:08:30 +0200
Jean Delvare wrote:
> A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. A
> value of 40 as the nouveau driver has is even slower at 12.5 kbps. I2C
> devices can typically operate faster than this, 50 kbps should be fine
> for all devices (and
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> On Friday 21 October 2011 03:32:44 pm Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:08:30 +0200
>>
>> Jean Delvare wrote:
>> > A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. A
>> > value of 40 as the nouveau
A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. A
value of 40 as the nouveau driver has is even slower at 12.5 kbps. I2C
devices can typically operate faster than this, 50 kbps should be fine
for all devices (and compliant devices can always stretch the clock is
needed.)
FWIW,
Hi Alan,
On Friday 21 October 2011 03:32:44 pm Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:08:30 +0200
Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. A
value of 40 as the nouveau driver has is even slower at 12.5 kbps.
I2C devices can
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Friday 21 October 2011 03:32:44 pm Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:08:30 +0200
Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
A udelay value of 20 leads to an I2C bus running at only 25 kbps. A
value of 40 as
20 matches
Mail list logo
