From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 4/5] i2c: davinci: use bus recovery infrastructure
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:18:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150403201846.GH2016@katana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <550C67D6.3080909@linaro.org>
> > The I2C specs say in 3.1.16 that the recovery procedure should be used
> > when SDA is stuck low. So, I do wonder if we should apply the recovery
> > after a timeout. Stuck SDA might be one reason for timeout, but there
> > may be others...
>
> This is ancient code. And regarding your question -
> Might be it would be reasonable to add call of
> i2c_davinci_wait_bus_not_busy() at the end of i2c_davinci_xfer()?
> This way we will wait for Bus Free before performing recovery.
That might be an improvement, but the generic question still remains:
Is a timeout a reason for recovery? SDA stuck low is one reason for a
timeout. I have problems making up my mind here between being pragmatic
and being in accordance with the specs.
> Of course, i2c_davinci_wait_bus_not_busy() has to be fixed first
> as proposed by Alexander Sverdlin here:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/448994/.
Okay, good that you said it. So I'll give his patch series priority over
this one.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150403/fb2a1bff/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-03 20:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-01 15:34 [PATCH v3 0/5] i2c: davinci improvements and fixes Grygorii Strashko
2014-12-01 15:34 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] i2c: i2c-davinci: switch to use platform_get_irq Grygorii Strashko
2014-12-04 18:28 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-12-01 15:34 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] i2c: davinci: generate STP always when NACK is received Grygorii Strashko
2014-12-04 18:28 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-12-01 15:34 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] i2c: recovery: change input parameter to i2c_adapter for prepare/unprepare_recovery Grygorii Strashko
2014-12-04 18:29 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-03-05 18:41 ` Grygorii Strashko
2015-03-12 11:32 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2015-03-13 10:15 ` Grygorii.Strashko@linaro.org
2015-03-13 15:45 ` Felipe Balbi
2014-12-01 15:34 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] i2c: davinci: use bus recovery infrastructure Grygorii Strashko
2015-03-12 11:45 ` Alexander Sverdlin
2015-03-18 20:31 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-03-20 18:32 ` Grygorii.Strashko@linaro.org
2015-04-03 20:18 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2015-04-06 13:11 ` Grygorii.Strashko@linaro.org
2015-04-06 16:09 ` Wolfram Sang
2015-04-06 16:28 ` Grygorii.Strashko@linaro.org
2014-12-01 15:34 ` [PATCH 5/5] i2c: davinci: use ICPFUNC to toggle I2C as gpio for bus recovery Grygorii Strashko
2015-04-01 14:38 ` Alexander Sverdlin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150403201846.GH2016@katana \
--to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).