On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:15:12AM +0900, Shinya Kuribayashi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/5/13 6:31 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:31:44PM +0900, Shinya Kuribayashi wrote:
> >>As said before, all t_SCL things should go away. Please forget
> >>about 100kbps, 400kbps, and so on. Bus/clock speed is totally
> >>pointless concept for the I2C bus systems. For example, as long
> >>as tr/tf, tHIGH/tLOW, tHD;STA, etc. are met by _all_ devices in a
> >>certain I2C bus, it doesn't matter that the resulting clock speed
> >>is, say 120 kbps with Standard-mode, or even 800 kbps for Fast-mode.
> >>Nobody in the I2C bus doesn't care about actual bus/clock speed.
> >>
> >>We don't have to care about the resulting bus speed, or rather
> >>we should/must not check to see if it's within the proper range.
> >
> >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.
I'm not sure if I agree with this:
Standard mode:
t_r;min 0ns
t_f;min + 0ns
t_HIGH;min + 4000ns
t_LOW;min + 4700ns
1/f_SCL = 8700ns
==> f_SCL = 115kHz ==> violation of f_SCL;max=100kHz
Fast mode (let's assume V_DD = 5.5V):
t_r;min 20ns
t_f;min + 20ns
t_HIGH;min + 600ns
t_LIW;min + 1300ns
1/f_SCL = 1940ns
==> f_SCL = 515kHz ==> violation of f_SCL;max=400kHz
In my understanding, f_SCL;max condition is only met
a) either if t_HIGH = t_HIGH;min and t_LOW = t_LOW;min
then t_r must be t_r;max and t_f must be t_f;max
b) or if t_r < t_r;max and t_f < t_f;max
then t_HIGH must be > t_HIGH;min and T_LOW must be T_LOW;min
Given that we cannot easily influence t_r and t_f we must adjust t_HIGH
and t_LOW. What am I missing here?
> 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.
I partially agree: If I2C devices don't care about f_SCL but only about
t_r, t_f, t_HIGH and t_LOW there's no need to respect the f_SCL;max
constraint. If this is the case, I'm wondering why it is part of the
specification, though.
> Is that clear? What is the point to make sure whether f_SCL
> constraint is met or not? Is there any combination where t_f,
> t_r, t_HIGH, t_LOW, t_HD;SATA are met, but f_SCL is out of range?
> I don't think there is.
See above.
> I'd make a compromise proposal; it's fine to make sure whether the
> resulting f_SCL is within a supported range, but should not make a
> correction of HCNT/LCNT values. Just report warning messages that
> some parameters/calculations might be mis-configured an/or wrong.
Not sure if this is a good idea: If f_SCL is met by design I'm perfectly
happy with dropping the t_HIGH/t_LOW adjustment code, no need to bloat
the kernel with confusing warnings. If f_SCL is not automatically met we
must either make sure t_HIGH/t_LOW are adjusted or we must take the
decision to ignore that constraint and document the reasons behind that
decision accordingly.
Greetings,
Christian
--
Christian Ruppert , <christian.ruppert@xxxxxxxxxx>
/|
Tel: +41/(0)22 816 19-42 //| 3, Chemin du Pré-Fleuri
_// | bilis Systems CH-1228 Plan-les-Ouates
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
