From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: PCA9564: "bus is not idle" issue Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:29:39 +0200 Message-ID: <20100403162939.GA2190@pengutronix.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Yegor Yefremov Cc: linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:59:03PM +0100, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I'm using PCA9564 attached to a ks8695 SoC. During my efforts to get > 2.6.33/34 running on my system I noticed sporadic problems with RTC: [...] > static struct i2c_pca9564_pf_platform_data __initdata pca_data =3D{ > .gpio =3D -1, > .i2c_clock_speed =3D 59000, > .timeout =3D 1, > }; Commit 8e99ada8deaa9033600cd2c7d0a9366b0e99ab68 changed the timeout setting= s to jiffies. So, one jiffy as timeout will not work. Try 'HZ' here. > before. Diffing i2c-algo-pca.c between 2.6.26 and 2.6.33 showed that > there were some minor changes regarding waiting policy in pca_xfer(). > Could this be the reason for such behavior? Any idea? You were almost there, just use 'git log' next time. Kind regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAku3bPMACgkQD27XaX1/VRtQLwCeKf1fxot/AI+GLSES+qDZz5D+ bYAAnjNHbvDPKXNqMyKxFSzEL1NKfDtS =4PQp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q--