Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH i2c-next 1/2] dt-bindings: i2c: aspeed: Add 'idle-wait-timeout-ms' setting | From | Jae Hyun Yoo <> | Date | Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:20:47 -0700 |
| |
On 9/25/2018 9:20 AM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote: > On 9/25/2018 1:27 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:15:46PM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote: >>> Hi Wolfram, >>> >>> On 9/24/2018 2:58 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:02:54AM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote: >>>>> On 9/10/2018 2:45 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote: >>>>>> +- idle-wait-timeout-ms : bus idle waiting timeout in >>>>>> milliseconds when >>>>>> + multi-master is set, defaults to 100 ms when not >>>>>> + specified. >>>>> >>>>> Will change it to 'aspeed,idle-wait-timeout-ms' as it's a non standard >>>>> property. >>>> >>>> No need. This binding is not a HW description, so not a DT property in >>>> my book. I still don't understand: Your IP core in master mode does not >>>> have a BUSY bit or similar which detects when a START was detected and >>>> clears after a STOP? >>>> >>> >>> Okay, I'll keep this property as it is then. >> >> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't think this a property, at all. >> It doesn't describe the hardware, it is more of a configuration thing, >> or? >> > > You are right. It doesn't describe the hardware but it needs to be > configurable because it very depends on the peer master's behavior. > If peer master sends a long packet usually, it should have a long > timeout value since a slave receiving operation takes long time, > and it should be adjusted with an optimal value with taking some > experiments to make it not too long. Any suggestion? >
Should I use timeout in struct i2c_adapter instead just like i2c-mpc does?
| |