On 2019-03-04 23:48, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Peda,
>
>> The way I read this series, you are not giving atomic transfers priority. The
>
> You are reading correctly. I could have made more clear that the issue
> pointed out by Russell is not handled by this series but discussion
> about it is wel
Hi Peda,
> The way I read this series, you are not giving atomic transfers priority. The
You are reading correctly. I could have made more clear that the issue
pointed out by Russell is not handled by this series but discussion
about it is welcome / needed to decide if we can take this series as
On 2019-03-02 14:47, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> So, finally, here is the second RFC for supporting I2C transfers in atomic
> contexts (i.e. very late). This will need some text because I tried some
> things
> on the way but had to discard them. However, I think it is important to have
> that documented
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:49 PM Wolfram Sang
wrote:
>
> So, finally, here is the second RFC for supporting I2C transfers in atomic
> contexts (i.e. very late). This will need some text because I tried some
> things
> on the way but had to discard them. However, I think it is important to have
> th
So, finally, here is the second RFC for supporting I2C transfers in atomic
contexts (i.e. very late). This will need some text because I tried some things
on the way but had to discard them. However, I think it is important to have
that documented.
One thing I really wanted to have is a kind of wh
5 matches
Mail list logo