lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-designware: make *CNT values configurable
Hi,

On 8/19/13 8:36 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:15:12AM +0900, Shinya Kuribayashi wrote:
>>> Actually, the I2C specification clearly defines f_SCL;max (and thus
>>> implies t_SCL;min), both in the tables and the timing diagrams. Why can
>>> we ignore this constraint while having to meet all the others?
>>
>> If we meet t_r, t_f, t_HIGH, t_LOW (and t_HIGH in this DW case),
>> f_SCL;max will be met by itself. And again, all I2C master and
>> slave devices in the bus don't care about f_SCL; what they do care
>> are t_f, t_r, t_HIGH, t_LOW, and so on. That's why I'm saying
>> f_SCL is pointless and has no value for HCNT/LCNT calculations.
>
> One thing that comes to mind regarding the bus speed is that even if we
> have all the minimal timing requirements met we still prefer resulting bus
> speeds closer to 400kHz than 315.41kHz for the reasons that we get more
> data transferred that way, no?

That depends I2C slave devices in the bus in your target systems.
As long as your slave devices can detect START/STOP conditions and
recognize SDA/SCL transitions properly, that should be Ok (you can
use HCNT/LCNT settings for 400 kHz without having all the minimal
timing requirements met).

My comments above was a reply to Christian's snippet code and how to
treat f_SCL;mas constraints, and unrelated to your case in question.
I'm for having a way to override HCNT/LCNT values as said before, and
that should nicely work for you.

Shinya


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-19 15:01    [W:0.132 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site