[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 01/10] [ARM] MXC: insert bus busy check in i2c_probe

[Jens Gehrlein <sew_s@tqs.de>]

Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD schrieb:
> On 16:50 Fri 04 Jul     , Jens Gehrlein wrote:
>> On fast CPUs the time between two chip queries can become too short
>> to issue clear start and stop conditions. The bus seems to be blocked.
>> This cannot be compensated by just waiting for completed byte transfer.
>> The patch introduces polling of the bus busy bit in the I2C
>> controller's status register before the next bus access is possible.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Gehrlein <sew_s@tqs.de>
>> ---
>>
>>  drivers/i2c/mxc_i2c.c |   10 ++++++++++
>>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/mxc_i2c.c b/drivers/i2c/mxc_i2c.c
>> index a218329..6f9306f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/mxc_i2c.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/mxc_i2c.c
>> @@ -115,6 +115,16 @@ static int rx_byte(void)
>>  int i2c_probe(uchar chip)
>>  {
>>  	int ret;
>> +	int timeout = 100000;
> Could you explain why 100000?
>> +
>> +	/* Check if bus is busy before probing next chip */
>> +	while ((__REG16(I2C_BASE + I2SR) & I2SR_IBB) && --timeout)
>> +		udelay(1);
>> +
>> +	if (timeout == 0) {
>> +		printf ("\nerror: bus blocked\n");
>> +		return -1;
>> +	}
>>  
>>  	__REG16(I2C_BASE + I2CR) = 0; /* Reset module */
>>  	__REG16(I2C_BASE + I2CR) = I2CR_IEN;

You are right. 100 ms is too high, although it should be irrelevant for 
a U-Boot command. Measurement showed, that some 100 microseconds would 
be enough. Do you agree if I set the timeout value to 1 ms? Other proposals?

Kind regards,
Jens