> > I'd prefer this file to be in the i2c realm. Maybe
> > 'include/linux/i2c-sccb.h" or something. I will come back to this.
>
> And while at it, I think we also need a .c file, the functions (and
> especially
> sccb_read_byte()) should not be static inline.
Before we discuss this, we should
Hello,
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 18:33:58 EEST Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:34:46AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> > (This is 2nd version of SCCB helpers patch. After 1st version was
> > submitted, I sent alternative patch titled "i2c: add I2C_M_FORCE_STOP".
> > But it wasn't
> > It sounds tempting, yet I am concerned about regressions. From that
> > point of view, it is safer to introduce i2c_lock_segment() and convert the
> > users which would benefit from that. How many drivers would be affected?
>
> Right, there is also the aspect that changing a function like
On 2018-06-14 17:41, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> So, maybe the easier thing to do is change i2c_lock_adapter to only
>> lock the segment, and then have the callers beneath drivers/i2c/
>> (plus the above mlx90614 driver) that really want to lock the root
>> adapter instead of the segment adapter
> So, maybe the easier thing to do is change i2c_lock_adapter to only
> lock the segment, and then have the callers beneath drivers/i2c/
> (plus the above mlx90614 driver) that really want to lock the root
> adapter instead of the segment adapter call a new function named
> i2c_lock_root (or
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:34:46AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> (This is 2nd version of SCCB helpers patch. After 1st version was
> submitted, I sent alternative patch titled "i2c: add I2C_M_FORCE_STOP".
> But it wasn't accepted because it makes the I2C core code unreadable.
> I couldn't find out
On 2018-06-12 19:31, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2018-06-12 17:34, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> (This is 2nd version of SCCB helpers patch. After 1st version was
>> submitted, I sent alternative patch titled "i2c: add I2C_M_FORCE_STOP".
>> But it wasn't accepted because it makes the I2C core code
On 2018-06-12 17:34, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> (This is 2nd version of SCCB helpers patch. After 1st version was
> submitted, I sent alternative patch titled "i2c: add I2C_M_FORCE_STOP".
> But it wasn't accepted because it makes the I2C core code unreadable.
> I couldn't find out a way to untangle
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:34:46AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> (This is 2nd version of SCCB helpers patch. After 1st version was
> submitted, I sent alternative patch titled "i2c: add I2C_M_FORCE_STOP".
> But it wasn't accepted because it makes the I2C core code unreadable.
> I couldn't
(This is 2nd version of SCCB helpers patch. After 1st version was
submitted, I sent alternative patch titled "i2c: add I2C_M_FORCE_STOP".
But it wasn't accepted because it makes the I2C core code unreadable.
I couldn't find out a way to untangle it, so I returned to the original
approach.)
This
10 matches
Mail list logo
