On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Nishanth Menon menon.nishanth@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/omap24xx_i2c.c b/drivers/i2c/omap24xx_i2c.c index 3256133..a91fe55 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/omap24xx_i2c.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/omap24xx_i2c.c @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ void i2c_init (int speed, int slaveadd) int psc, fsscll, fssclh; int hsscll = 0, hssclh = 0; u32 scll, sclh;
- int reset_timeout = 10;
I am guessing we can life with a u8, we timeout in 10ms.. would asking for a #define I2C_TIMEOUT_RESET is too much here?
I can't imagine why we would ever want to make this a config option!
In normal operation the loop is only traversed one time. I only added the timeout to prevent the possibility of an infinite loop.
not as a config option, but a #define in the C file so that it is readable, the 10 makes not much sense at a glance.. but as I mentioned, it is just a nitpick.. it just helps to quickly figure out which are the timeouts used in the driver.. I mean we cant proceed with i2c_init or use it as i2c master (aka no point in using the driver) if that happens in the system rt?
OK, I will submit a version 2 with a #define for the timeout/retry count.
- printf ("I2C read: addr len %d not supported\n", alen);
- printf("I2C write: addr len %d not supported\n", alen);
err.. do we need this change?
I think so -- otherwise the i2c_write function is printing messages claiming to come from i2c_read! Same for the other messages you flagged.
Apologies on not being clear - I dont have a problem with the print as such, BUT, do we need a diff here which changes printf ("... to printf("... ? makes no reason why I need that for reliable OMAP4 operation :D..
The message is clearly wrong, but your point is well taken: an erroneous error message fix doesn't really belong in a patch for reliable operation on OMAP4.
Version 2 of this patch will address only the reliability issues and your request for a timeout #define.
I will then do a subsequent patch (not part of this series) to fix erroneous error messages, potential infinite loops, and a variety of whitespace and style issues.
Regards,
Steve