From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: 405 I2C From: Kenneth Johansson To: andrew may Cc: Linuxppc embedded , Armin Kuster In-Reply-To: <20020521085924.F9190@ecam.san.rr.com> References: <1021995053.7265.22.camel@swb11> <20020521085924.F9190@ecam.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: 21 May 2002 18:16:33 +0200 Message-Id: <1021997793.7265.36.camel@swb11> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 17:59, andrew may wrote: > > Also I have a problem when accessing a device that is not present. The > > bus ends up in busy state an no other action can be taken. I solved the > > problem for me here by simply removing the test in iix_xfer but a proper > > solution has to be discussed. I have not tried Andrew's new iic_xfer is > > it going to be merged ?? > > Does the scan bus work for you? It should go through and read from all > possible locations and report if a device is there. It works with my > iic_xfer but I don't rember if I tried the old one. It should have the > same effect as "accessing a device that is not present". No it's not the same the scan work ok. I have not looked into exactly why it works but my test program that reads 1 byte from userspace with i2c_smbus_read_byte_data() dose not. I hoped I did not have to dig thru too much into this as I don't know much about it. > > Which test in iix_xffer that? Good question I get a bit unsure of what is going on when I read it again but here is the test I removed. Everything works as I want when I remove it. /* When the bus is free, the BCS bits in the EXTSTS register are 0b100 */ if (ret != 0x40){ return IIC_ERR_LOST_ARB; } -- Kenneth Johansson Ericsson AB Tel: +46 8 404 71 83 Borgafjordsgatan 9 Fax: +46 8 404 72 72 164 80 Stockholm kenneth.johansson@etx.ericsson.se ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/