Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 5/6] i2c: designware: add SLAVE mode functions | From | Jarkko Nikula <> | Date | Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:29:17 +0200 |
| |
On 03/17/17 13:24, Luis Oliveira wrote: > On 02-Mar-17 15:17, Luis Oliveira wrote: >> On 02-Mar-17 14:33, Jarkko Nikula wrote: >>> On 03/01/17 17:59, Luis Oliveira wrote: >>>> - Changes in Kconfig to enable I2C_DESIGNWARE_SLAVE support >>>> - Slave functions added to core library file >>>> - Slave abort sources added to common source file >>>> - New driver: i2c-designware-slave added >>>> - Changes in the Makefile to compile the I2C_DESIGNWARE_SLAVE module >>>> when supported by the architecture. >>>> >>>> All the SLAVE flow is added but it is not enabled via platform >>>> driver. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Luis Oliveira <lolivei@synopsys.com> >>>> --- >>>> V5->V6 >>>> - Enable Slave mode using a different option (kbuild reported an error) >>>> - Identation fixes needed >>>> - Changed debug prints to dev_vdbg >>>> - Fixed slave enumeration >>>> >>>> drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 14 +- >>>> drivers/i2c/busses/Makefile | 1 + >>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c | 7 + >>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h | 3 + >>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c | 403 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 5 files changed, 427 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> create mode 100644 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c >>>> >>> ... >>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c >>>> b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c >>>> index 6357c7c78f6d..24641635aa20 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c >>>> @@ -56,6 +56,13 @@ static char *abort_sources[] = { >>>> "trying to use disabled adapter", >>>> [ARB_LOST] = >>>> "lost arbitration", >>>> + [ABRT_SLAVE_FLUSH_TXFIFO] = >>>> + "read command so flush old data in the TX FIFO", >>>> + [ABRT_SLAVE_ARBLOST] = >>>> + "slave lost the bus while transmitting data to a remote master", >>>> + [ABRT_SLAVE_RD_INTX] = >>>> + "slave request for data to be transmitted and there is a 1 in " >>>> + "bit 8 of IC_DATA_CMD", >>>> }; >>> >>> I know ABRT_SLAVE_RD_INTX case is from the specification but I would prefer here >>> one-line error text so it will be easier to grep from sources. >>> >>> I would like it to be also be more understandable. I don't know did I understood >>> it correctly but does it occur when attempting to read controller while >>> transmitting or something like that? >> >> It happens in the "slave-transmitter" mode, when the processor side responds to >> a request for data to be transmitted and at the same time someone writes 1 to >> the bit 8 of the IC_DATA_CMD. This bit in "slave-transmitter" mode has to be "0" >> to indicate the data is to be transmitted. >> >> In "slave-receiver" mode it has no purpose since writes to this register are not >> required. > > If you agree for the v7 I can change it to "incorrect slave-transmitter mode > configuration", it's not as clear but it gives a clue of where the error comes from. > I'm fine with it. I think it's more understandable.
-- Jarkko
| |