Andrew,
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:44:02 -0800 Sonny Rao wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Doug Anderson
>> wrote:
>> > Sonny,
>> >
>> >> Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
>> >> and you're
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:44:02 -0800 Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Sonny,
> >
> >> Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
> >> and you're relying on the fact that the i2c transaction takes a
> >> certain amount of time
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Sonny,
>
>> Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
>> and you're relying on the fact that the i2c transaction takes a
>> certain amount of time after the RTC_GET_TIME BIT is set. I'm not
>> sure how long it
Chris,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chris Zhong wrote:
> + /* After we set the GET_TIME bit, the rtc time couldn't be read
> +* immediately, we should wait up to 31.25 us, about one cycle of
> +* 32khz. If we clear the GET_TIME bit here, the time of i2c transfer
> +
Sonny,
> Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
> and you're relying on the fact that the i2c transaction takes a
> certain amount of time after the RTC_GET_TIME BIT is set. I'm not
> sure how long it actually takes, but why not just put in a usleep()
> for the
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chris Zhong wrote:
> After we set the GET_TIME bit, the rtc time couldn't be read immediately,
> we should wait up to 31.25 us, about one cycle of 32khz. Otherwise reading
> RTC time will return a old time. If clear the GET_TIME bit after setting,
> the time of
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org wrote:
Sonny,
Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
and you're relying on the fact that the i2c transaction takes a
certain amount of time after the RTC_GET_TIME BIT is set. I'm not
sure how
Andrew,
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:44:02 -0800 Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org
wrote:
Sonny,
Chris, it looks like you swapped the set
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:44:02 -0800 Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org wrote:
Sonny,
Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
and you're relying on the fact that the i2c transaction takes
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chris Zhong z...@rock-chips.com wrote:
After we set the GET_TIME bit, the rtc time couldn't be read immediately,
we should wait up to 31.25 us, about one cycle of 32khz. Otherwise reading
RTC time will return a old time. If clear the GET_TIME bit after setting,
Sonny,
Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
and you're relying on the fact that the i2c transaction takes a
certain amount of time after the RTC_GET_TIME BIT is set. I'm not
sure how long it actually takes, but why not just put in a usleep()
for the minimum
Chris,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chris Zhong z...@rock-chips.com wrote:
+ /* After we set the GET_TIME bit, the rtc time couldn't be read
+* immediately, we should wait up to 31.25 us, about one cycle of
+* 32khz. If we clear the GET_TIME bit here, the time of i2c
12 matches
Mail list logo
