From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tolunay Orkun <listmember@orkun.us>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:34:38 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] soft_i2c/i2c_probe(): Perform reads instead
 of writes
In-Reply-To: <87hdg5c5w8.fsf@p4.48ers.dk>
References: <87ekbt3g7h.fsf@p4.48ers.dk> <42964F22.60600@orkun.us> <87hdg5c5w8.fsf@p4.48ers.dk>
Message-ID: <42AF4D6E.8050208@orkun.us>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Peter Korsgaard wrote:

>>>>>>"Tolunay" == Tolunay Orkun <listmember@orkun.us> writes:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>Hi, and sorry for the slow response!
>
> Tolunay> Peter, I believe the implementation was correct but the
> Tolunay> comment was wrong. It should be a write transaction with
> Tolunay> just address byte. After the address byte is transmitted the
> Tolunay> I2C slave will acknowledge (if present) and we finish the
> Tolunay> transaction by generating the stop condition. i.e. fake
> Tolunay> write.
>
>Why write? Wouldn't a zero byte read transaction be safer?
>
>  
>
I have read somewhere (that I cannot find now), that some device would 
lock up on 0-byte read vs 0-byte write. Since the current code is 
working as it is unless there is demonstrable problem with it, I would 
fix the comment only.