[i2c] [patch 2.6.24-rc1-git] i2c-algo-bit, don't yield()
david-b at pacbell.net
Mon Nov 19 03:11:51 CET 2007
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Just kill try_address and call i2c_outb() directly?
> > Not at this time. This is the natural place to put that
> > information about how I2C and SMBus have different rules,
> > which arguably merits a programming abstraction in its own
> > right...
> Arguably, this difference between I2C and SMBus is not specific to
> i2c-algo-bit so this documentation doesn't really belong to that file.
Doesn't hurt to have it there, though. Plus, I find myself thinking
that algo-bit is the best bet for a reference implementation, and is
accordingly appropriate for being commented a bit better than most
other i2c adapter code. No other code is going to have any kind of
close match to the bits-on-the-wire, and that's a very useful level
at which to understand I2C.
> But if you insist on including it here (which is fine with me), I fail
> to see why the same comment shouldn't go right before bit_doAddress.
Because bit_doAddress() calls try_address() to do its dirty work,
and thus doesn't need another comment. ;)
> > Remove i2c_adapter->retries support from i2c-algo-pcf ... this compiles,
> > but is untested. The paths for ten bit addressing look especially broken;
> > they were also the only ones which would actually use those values.
> Same code as in i2c-algo-bit, and equally broken. That's one of the
> reasons why I wanted to kill 10-bit addressing support some times ago.
> Oh, on second look, I have to agree with you... even more broken than
Yep ... especially broken, and not the same code at all.
> At this level of brokenness, I'd suggest that we plain
> kill 10-bit addressing support from this driver; this happens to also
> solve the retries issue, so all good.
So you want an updated patch scrubbing both mechanisms from algo-pcf?
And not from algo-bit? Or separate patches?
More information about the i2c