Hi Chris, > > - "i2c-scl-has-clk-low-timeout" > > > > AFAIU this binding tells that the controller can do clock stretching. > > But what for? I don't see why this is important for clients. If > > anything, then it would be interesting if the *client* can do clock > > stretching and if the controller can actually handle that. But no need > > to describe it in DT, we have this as an adapter quirk already > > 'I2C_AQ_NO_CLK_STRETCH'. > > Hmm I know of a few adapters that should probably set > I2C_AQ_NO_CLK_STRETCH based on some Errata. Probably just a That would be helpful if you could add that. I always guessed there should be more controllers needing the flag but never encountered them personally. > documentation exercise. It would be nice to reject clients that need to > do clock stretching but often it happens as a side effect rather than > being intentional (I've seen this with i2c clients implemented in > microcontrollers). I guess the way forward with that is we add a flag like I2C_CLIENT_CLK_STRETCH and let the core figure out if controller and client are compatible. Dunno what to do if not, though. Reject? Throw a warning that there might be problems? Probably reject by default unless overridden by something-meaning-i-know-the-risks. > > Suggestion: let's remove this binding and conver i2c-mpc to > > "i2c-transfer-timeout-us". Yes, not nice to have two deprecated > > bindings, but things happened. > > Sounds like a good idea. We'd obviously need to keep support for the > existing property but it wouldn't be hard to add > "i2c-transfer-timeout-us". I'll try to whip up a patch for that sometime > this week, just need to dust off my Freescale boards. Please wait a little with the implementation. I want to try Rob's idea to let the core set the timeout flag initially. Dusting off the boards for testing would be awesome, though :) Happy hacking, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
