Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:21:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:21:05 -0400 Received: from zikova.cvut.cz ([147.32.235.100]:34315 "EHLO zikova.cvut.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:21:05 -0400 From: "Petr Vandrovec" Organization: CC CTU Prague To: Albert Cranford Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:23:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [patch] 2.5.25 I2C driver id and Config updates boundar CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.50 Message-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1297 Lines: 28 On 11 Jul 02 at 1:26, Albert Cranford wrote: > Hello Linus, > Could you please apply these 3 patches toward 2.5.26. > They include Config.in updates, additions in i2c-id.h > for "Video for Linux" and a compatibility fix for > i2c-algo-bit.c Hi, is timeout field in i2c_algo_bit_data supposed to be in jiffies (like it is currently used) or in 10ms units? If it is supposed to be in jiffies (other algos do not care about timeout field), there is dozen of places (all callers of i2c_bit_add_bus) which get it wrong. Next suspicious thing is that 'timeout' field from i2c_adapter structure is not used at all - only i2c_control is willing to set it, but nobody reads this field. Should not i2c_bit_add_bus copy its timeout into this field, and then use adap->timeout instead of bitadap->timeout in its sclhi() procedure? Thanks, Petr Vandrovec vandrove@vc.cvut.cz - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/