Dear Lucas,
On 04.05.2016 16:38, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Christian Ruppert
> wrote:
>> Dear Lucas,
>>
>> On 22.04.2016 17:19, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>> CC'ing Christian.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
>>> wrote:
> [.
Hi Christian,
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Christian Ruppert
wrote:
> Dear Lucas,
>
> On 22.04.2016 17:19, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> CC'ing Christian.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
>> wrote:
>>> Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
Dear Lucas,
On 22.04.2016 17:19, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> CC'ing Christian.
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
> wrote:
>> Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
>> other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
>> transf
On 04/25/2016 06:04 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On 04/25/2016 08:51 AM, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
[ ... ]
@@ -413,8 +416,16 @@ static void i2c_dw_xfer_init(struct dw_i2c_dev
*dev)
struct i2c_msg *msgs = dev->msgs;
u32 ic_con, ic_tar = 0;
-/* Disable the adapter */
-__i2c_dw_en
On 04/25/2016 08:51 AM, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
[ ... ]
@@ -413,8 +416,16 @@ static void i2c_dw_xfer_init(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
struct i2c_msg *msgs = dev->msgs;
u32 ic_con, ic_tar = 0;
-/* Disable the adapter */
-__i2c_dw_enable(dev, false);
+if (dev->enabled) {
+
On 04/22/2016 06:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled again.
During the transfer in
CC'ing Christian.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:
> Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
> other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
> transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
> en
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled again.
During the transfer init we check the status register for no activity
a
On 2016-04-07 19:28, De Marchi, Lucas wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 15:37 +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> Dear Lucas,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply but I had to put our test environment back
>> together to check this patch. I'll keep it around for a while in case
>> you have
Hi
On 04/01/2016 05:47 AM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
From: Lucas De Marchi
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled ag
Hi Christian,
On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 15:37 +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Dear Lucas,
>
> Sorry for the late reply but I had to put our test environment back
> together to check this patch. I'll keep it around for a while in case
> you have further iterations to test.
np, I'll try to iterate f
Dear Lucas,
Sorry for the late reply but I had to put our test environment back
together to check this patch. I'll keep it around for a while in case
you have further iterations to test.
On 2016-04-01 04:47, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> From: Lucas De Marchi
>
> Disabling the adapter after each tra
From: Lucas De Marchi
Disabling the adapter after each transfer is pretty bad for sensors and
other devices doing small transfers at a high rate. It slows down the
transfer rate a lot since each of them have to wait the adapter to be
enabled again.
It was done in order to avoid the adapter to ge
13 matches
Mail list logo
