Sender : Wolfram Sang
Date : 2013-04-24 01:27 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] I2C: Change the value of octeon i2c adapter timeout
value
> Well, OK, I don't mind. We can increase it later if needed.
> Applied to for-next, thanks! Please have a look later how I changed your
&g
Hi,
what mail client do you use? It seems to break message threading on my side :(
> > Have you been writing to EEPROMS? Their erase/write cycle might be
> > longer. But I am not forcing you to change the value, just giving some
> > suggestions.
>
> My board has i2c mux, temp sensor, eeprom.
Hi,
what mail client do you use? It seems to break message threading on my side :(
Have you been writing to EEPROMS? Their erase/write cycle might be
longer. But I am not forcing you to change the value, just giving some
suggestions.
My board has i2c mux, temp sensor, eeprom. And I
Sender : Wolfram Sangw...@the-dreams.de
Date : 2013-04-24 01:27 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] I2C: Change the value of octeon i2c adapter timeout
value
Well, OK, I don't mind. We can increase it later if needed.
Applied to for-next, thanks! Please have a look later how I changed
>
> Have you been writing to EEPROMS? Their erase/write cycle might be
> longer. But I am not forcing you to change the value, just giving some
> suggestions.
My board has i2c mux, temp sensor, eeprom. And I added some debugging code for
measuring i2c response time as below and
run i2c
Have you been writing to EEPROMS? Their erase/write cycle might be
longer. But I am not forcing you to change the value, just giving some
suggestions.
My board has i2c mux, temp sensor, eeprom. And I added some debugging code for
measuring i2c response time as below and
run i2c
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 09:13:54AM +, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:01:04AM +, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
> >>
> >> I think HZ/50 is better than 2 for adapter timeout.
>
> > Basically OK. But why HZ/50? Most drivers use HZ.
>
> Actually, I just translated 2 jiffies
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:01:04AM +, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
>>
>> I think HZ/50 is better than 2 for adapter timeout.
> Basically OK. But why HZ/50? Most drivers use HZ.
Actually, I just translated 2 jiffies because HZ is 100 in default cavium
config.
You can find that in
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:01:04AM +, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
I think HZ/50 is better than 2 for adapter timeout.
Basically OK. But why HZ/50? Most drivers use HZ.
Actually, I just translated 2 jiffies because HZ is 100 in default cavium
config.
You can find that in
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 09:13:54AM +, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:01:04AM +, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
I think HZ/50 is better than 2 for adapter timeout.
Basically OK. But why HZ/50? Most drivers use HZ.
Actually, I just translated 2 jiffies because HZ is
10 matches
Mail list logo
