On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:43:51 +0100
Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@urpla.net> wrote:

quoted text
> +	/* The mspx4xx chips need a longer delay for some reason */
> +	if (!(itv->hw_flags & IVTV_HW_MSP34XX))
> +		itv->i2c_algo.udelay = 5;
> +
> 
> where the logic in hunk #1 was switched, resulting in a now misleading 
> comment over there.

If you notice the ! at the above line, and remind that the original value for 
udelay is 10, you can understand the comment ;)
quoted text
> 
> How about something in the line of:
> 
> 	/* 
> 	 * We started with a bigger udelay in order to fulfill the needs of the
> 	 * mspx4xx chips: cut it down here for all other members of the family.
> 	 */

Your suggestion seems clearer to my eyes. Still the other possibilities are not
from Micronas msp34xx family, but audio decoder chips from other vendors - as
weel as other kind of i2c devices, like IR chips, video encoders, etc.

So, IMO, a better comment would be something like:

 	/* 
 	 * We started with a bigger udelay in order to avoid troubles with some
 	 * msp34xx chips. Boards without msp34xx are known to work with the full
	 * i2c 100 kHz speed.
	 */

I'm C/C the patch author (Hans) for his comments about this, since he is
the one who faced with the problems with msp34xx and ivtv.


Cheers,
Mauro
--
unsubscribe notice
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/