Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] i2c: recovery: if possible send STOP with recovery pulses

2018-07-12 Thread Wolfram Sang
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:42:15PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > I2C clients may misunderstand recovery pulses if they can't read SDA to > bail out early. In the worst case, as a write operation. To avoid that > and if we can write SDA, try to send STOP to avoid the > misinterpretation. > > Signed-

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] i2c: recovery: if possible send STOP with recovery pulses

2018-07-11 Thread Wolfram Sang
Hi Peter, > Hmmm, should not the ndelay before the loop also be split up in two like > this, with one ndelay(... / 2) on either side of the (possible) set_sda. > Not that it should matter, since SDA is presumably stuck low. But what if > it isn't? I agree it would be better. > I would also chang

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] i2c: recovery: if possible send STOP with recovery pulses

2018-07-10 Thread Peter Rosin
On 2018-07-10 23:42, Wolfram Sang wrote: > I2C clients may misunderstand recovery pulses if they can't read SDA to > bail out early. In the worst case, as a write operation. To avoid that > and if we can write SDA, try to send STOP to avoid the > misinterpretation. > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang