On 8/25/22 10:04, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 04:31:50PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 8/23/22 19:27, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:23:55AM +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote:
On Aug 20 15:57, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
I think when Klaus ported his slave mode
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 04:31:50PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 8/23/22 19:27, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:23:55AM +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > > On Aug 20 15:57, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
> > > > I think when Klaus ported his slave mode changes from the original p
On 8/23/22 19:27, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:23:55AM +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote:
On Aug 20 15:57, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
I think when Klaus ported his slave mode changes from the original patch
series to the rewritten I2C module, he changed the behavior of the first
byte
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:23:55AM +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> On Aug 20 15:57, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
> > I think when Klaus ported his slave mode changes from the original patch
> > series to the rewritten I2C module, he changed the behavior of the first
> > byte that is received by the slave d
On Aug 20 15:57, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
> I think when Klaus ported his slave mode changes from the original patch
> series to the rewritten I2C module, he changed the behavior of the first
> byte that is received by the slave device.
>
> What's supposed to happen is that the AspeedI2CBus's slave
