Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: omap: improve duty cycle on SCL

[Felipe Balbi <balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1667 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:42:41PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:25:58PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:09:59AM +0200, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
> > > Hello Felipe,
> > > 
> > > On 17/06/15 21:31, ext Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > With this patch we try to be as close to 50%
> > > > duty cycle as possible. The reason for this
> > > > is that some devices present an erratic behavior
> > > > with certain duty cycles.
> > > > 
> > > > One such example is TPS65218 PMIC which fails
> > > > to change voltages when running @ 400kHz and
> > > > duty cycle is lower than 34%.
> > > > 
> > > > The idea of the patch is simple:
> > > > 
> > > > calculate desired scl_period from requested scl
> > > > and use 50% for tLow and 50% for tHigh.
> > > > 
> > > > tLow is calculated with a DIV_ROUND_UP() to make
> > > > sure it's slightly higher than tHigh and to make
> > > > sure that we end up within I2C specifications.
> > > 
> > > if you refuse to change the calculations to achieve maximum possible
> > > bus rate (as I've shown you with SCLL=9 and SCLH=9), maybe you want to
> > > change the description? Because you are doing something else than is
> > > written here. You are only in spec because you are not doing 50% duty
> > > cycle. And you didn't mention here that you lower the bus speed below
> > > 400kHz to achieve this.
> > 
> > and there's a comment where the calculation goes which states "as close
> > to 50% as possible but we make sure tLow is higher than tHigh so we're
> > still within spec".
> 
> So, is that ready to go in for-next?

should be.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]