Ben Dooks said the following:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:09:57PM +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote:
>> Ben Dooks said the following:
>> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>> >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > This fixes MAL (arbit
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:09:57PM +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> > Ben Dooks said the following:
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> > >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused
>
> Ben Dooks said the following:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal
> >> wrote:
> >> > This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by illegal use of
> >> > RSTA (repeated START) after STOP condition generate
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:09:57PM +0100, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> Ben Dooks said the following:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal
> >> wrote:
> >> > This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by illegal us
Ben Dooks said the following:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal
>> wrote:
>> > This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by illegal use of
>> > RSTA (repeated START) after STOP condition generated after last b
Ben Dooks wrote:
is there a new version of this patch available?
I will catch up on it ASAP.
/Esben
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
is there a new version of this patch available?
--
Ben (b...@fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/)
'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> Hi Esben and Ben,
>
> Sorry for the lateness in reviewing this. FWIW, here are my comments.
>
> g.
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Esben Haabendal
> wrote:
>> This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by illegal use of
>> RSTA (repea
Hi Esben and Ben,
Sorry for the lateness in reviewing this. FWIW, here are my comments.
g.
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Esben Haabendal
wrote:
> This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by illegal use of
> RSTA (repeated START) after STOP condition generated after last byte
> of reads
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:15:22PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> >>> This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by
Peter Korsgaard wrote:
"Esben" == Esben Haabendal writes:
Hi,
Esben> It's strange, that line looks perfectly fine when I check the
Esben> mail in my GMail inbox and the outbox from the account I sent
Esben> it from.
Well, it is here and in the archive:
http://ozlabs.org/piper
> "Esben" == Esben Haabendal writes:
Hi,
Esben> It's strange, that line looks perfectly fine when I check the
Esben> mail in my GMail inbox and the outbox from the account I sent
Esben> it from.
Well, it is here and in the archive:
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-May/072274
> Esben> I've checked both my copy in my "Sent" folder and the copy
> Esben> received from the list, and I cannot see any "line break"
> Esben> breakage of the patch.
>
> I guess Wolfram referred to the context line which was clearly word wrapped:
>
> @@ -456,17 +456,22 @@ static int mpc_xfer(st
> "Esben" == Esben Haabendal writes:
Hi,
>> I wanted to test it, but it does not apply due to line breaks (check
>> @@-line). Also, I don't really have the time to dig into the topic, so I
>> would only test it and give a tested-by-tag if it doesn't break anything
>> here. I think Joakim
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>>> This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by illegal use of
>>> RSTA (repeated START) after STOP condition generated afte
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> > Any blockers to get this accepted?
>>
>> It would be nice to get an ack from someone who can actually test
>> the driver before getting this merged.
>
> I wanted to test it, but it does not apply due to line breaks (check
> @@-line). Also,
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Esben Haabendal
wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal
> wrote:
>> This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by illegal use of
>> RSTA (repeated START) after STOP condition generated after last byte
>> of reads. With this patch, it is possib
Wolfram Sang wrote on 28/05/2009 19:17:26:
>
> > > Any blockers to get this accepted?
> >
> > It would be nice to get an ack from someone who can actually test
> > the driver before getting this merged.
>
> I wanted to test it, but it does not apply due to line breaks (check
> @@-line). Also, I do
> > Any blockers to get this accepted?
>
> It would be nice to get an ack from someone who can actually test
> the driver before getting this merged.
I wanted to test it, but it does not apply due to line breaks (check
@@-line). Also, I don't really have the time to dig into the topic, so I
would
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal
> wrote:
> > This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by illegal use of
> > RSTA (repeated START) after STOP condition generated after last byte
> > of reads. With this patch, i
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Esben Haabendal
wrote:
> This fixes MAL (arbitration lost) bug caused by illegal use of
> RSTA (repeated START) after STOP condition generated after last byte
> of reads. With this patch, it is possible to do an i2c_transfer() with
> additional i2c_msg's following
21 matches
Mail list logo
