From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com (Troy Kisky)
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:41:54 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] i2c i.MX: Fix divider table
In-Reply-To: <20120706062852.GZ30009@pengutronix.de>
References: <1341493826-13861-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
 <20120705145236.GA2735@richard-laptop>
 <20120705160153.GT30009@pengutronix.de>
 <20120706005249.GA26888@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net>
 <20120706062852.GZ30009@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <4FF72362.5020704@boundarydevices.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 7/5/2012 11:28 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 08:52:50AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 06:01:53PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:52:39PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>>>> Measurements on i.MX1 and i.MX53 have shown that the divider values
>>>>> in the datasheets are wrong. the values from first, third and fourth
>>>>> column were all measured to be 8 higher than in the datasheet. It
>>>>> should be safe to assume that the SoCs between i.MX1 and i.MX53 behave
>>>>> the same as the i2c unit is unchanged since the i.MX1.
>>>> We may need to check with IC guys? Or you've done?
>>> I don't have contact to the IC guys. Could you do this? I'd be
>>> interested in the results.
>> Sure, but it may be slow, as you know, many people are in summer break.
> Thanks. It can take longer, the resulting frequencies are all too low,
> so we are on the safe side.
>
> Sascha
>
You mean safe before the patch is applied, not after. Right?

Troy