From: Nishanth Menon <menon.nishanth@gmail.com>
To: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@nokia.com>
Cc: "Nurkkala Eero.An (EXT-Offcode/Oulu)"
<ext-Eero.Nurkkala@nokia.com>,
"r-woodruff2@ti.com" <r-woodruff2@ti.com>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tHigh tLow discussion (was [pacth] I2C bug fixes for L-O and L-Z)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:43:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49A3DD52.4020303@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49A3B92E.9030101@nokia.com>
Aaro Koskinen said the following on 02/24/2009 11:09 AM:
> ext Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> Oops.. copy-paste typo.. :(
>> tLow = (scll+3) * iclk
>> tHigh = (sclh+9) * iclk
>> Vs:
>> TRM:
>> tHigh = ( sclh +5 )*iclk period
>> tLow = ( scll +7 )*iclk period
>>
>> But my question is this: why are we trying to a different equation
>> here compared to the equation in the TRM?
>
> The problem with TRM (the table 18-13 you referred earlier) is that it
> assumes 50% duty cycle while the correct one is more like 33%. This is
> corrected by Eero's patch:
Gentle query - could you point me to the place where the 33% duty cycle
is mentioned in i2c spec? spec mentions minimum timing, but I don't seem
to find a constraint on duty cycle requirement.. :(
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-24 11:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-16 7:02 [pacth] I2C bug fixes for L-O and L-Z Eero Nurkkala
2009-02-16 14:19 ` Woodruff, Richard
2009-02-17 6:02 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-02-17 6:22 ` Woodruff, Richard
2009-02-20 20:59 ` Woodruff, Richard
2009-02-23 13:37 ` Eero Nurkkala
2009-02-23 17:01 ` tHigh tLow discussion (was [pacth] I2C bug fixes for L-O and L-Z) Nishanth Menon
2009-02-23 18:10 ` ext-Eero.Nurkkala
2009-02-23 18:19 ` Nishanth Menon
2009-02-23 18:20 ` ext-Eero.Nurkkala
2009-02-23 18:25 ` Nishanth Menon
2009-02-23 18:27 ` ext-Eero.Nurkkala
2009-02-23 18:34 ` Nishanth Menon
2009-02-23 18:38 ` ext-Eero.Nurkkala
2009-02-24 9:09 ` Aaro Koskinen
2009-02-24 9:43 ` ext-Eero.Nurkkala
2009-02-24 11:43 ` Nishanth Menon [this message]
2009-02-24 12:47 ` Aaro Koskinen
2009-02-24 12:57 ` Woodruff, Richard
2009-02-24 13:17 ` Woodruff, Richard
2009-02-24 13:23 ` Pakaravoor, Jagadeesh
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=49A3DD52.4020303@gmail.com \
--to=menon.nishanth@gmail.com \
--cc=aaro.koskinen@nokia.com \
--cc=ext-Eero.Nurkkala@nokia.com \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=r-woodruff2@ti.com \
/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