Addy,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:23 AM, addy ke <addy.ke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 2014/9/24 12:10, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Addy,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Addy Ke <addy.ke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> As show in I2C specification:
>>> - Standard-mode:
>>> the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 4.0us
>>> the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 4.7us
>>> - Fast-mode:
>>> the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 0.6us
>>> the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 1.3us
>>> - Fast-mode plus:
>>> the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 0.26us
>>> the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 0.5us
>>> - HS-mode(<1.7MHz):
>>> the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 0.12us
>>> the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 0.32us
>>> - HS-mode(<3.4MHz):
>>> the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 0.06us
>>> the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 0.16us
>>>
>>> I have measured i2c SCL waveforms in fast-mode by oscilloscope
>>> on rk3288-pinky board. the LOW period of the scl clock is 1.3us.
>>> It is so critical that we must adjust LOW division to increase
>>> the LOW period of the scl clock.
>>>
>>> Thanks Doug for the suggestion about division formula.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Addy Ke <addy.ke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rk3x.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rk3x.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rk3x.c
>>> index 93cfc83..49d67b7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rk3x.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rk3x.c
>>> @@ -428,18 +428,83 @@ out:
>>> return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void rk3x_i2c_get_ratios(unsigned long scl_rate,
>>> + unsigned long *high_ratio,
>>> + unsigned long *low_ratio)
>>> +{
>>> + /* As show in I2C specification:
>>> + * - Standard-mode:
>>> + * the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 4.0us
>>> + * the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 4.7us
>>> + * - Fast-mode:
>>> + * the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 0.6us
>>> + * the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 1.3us
>>> + * - Fast-mode plus:
>>> + * the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 0.26us
>>> + * the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 0.5us
>>> + * - HS-mode(<1.7MHz):
>>> + * the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 0.12us
>>> + * the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 0.32us
>>> + * - HS-mode(<3.4MHz):
>>> + * the minimum HIGH period of the scl clock is 0.06us
>>> + * the minimum LOW period of the scl clock is 0.16us
>>
>> Is the rest of the driver ready for Fast-mode plus or HS mode? If not
>> then maybe leave those off? If nothing else the commit message should
>> indicate that this is just being forward thinking.
>>
>>> + */
>>> + if (scl_rate <= 100000) {
>>> + *high_ratio = 40;
>>> + *low_ratio = 47;
>>> + } else if (scl_rate <= 400000) {
>>> + *high_ratio = 6;
>>> + *low_ratio = 13;
>>> + } else if (scl_rate <= 1000000) {
>>> + *high_ratio = 26;
>>> + *low_ratio = 50;
>>> + } else if (scl_rate <= 1700000) {
>>> + *high_ratio = 12;
>>> + *low_ratio = 32;
>>> + } else {
>>> + *high_ratio = 6;
>>> + *low_ratio = 16;
>>
>> Since it's only the ratio of high to low that matters, you can combine
>> the last two. 12 : 32 == 6 : 16
>>
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void rk3x_i2c_calc_divs(unsigned long i2c_rate, unsigned long scl_rate,
>>> + unsigned long *divh, unsigned long *divl)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long high_ratio, low_ratio;
>>> + unsigned long ratio_sum;
>>> +
>>> + rk3x_i2c_get_ratios(scl_rate, &high_ratio, &low_ratio);
>>> + ratio_sum = high_ratio + low_ratio;
>>> +
>>> + /* T_high = T_clk * (divh + 1) * 8
>>> + * T_low = T_clk * (divl + 1) * 8
>>> + * T_scl = T_high + T_low
>>> + * T_scl = 1 / scl_rate
>>> + * T_clk = 1 / i2c_rate
>>> + * T_high : T_low = high_ratio : low_ratio
>>> + * ratio_sum = high_ratio + low_ratio
>>> + *
>>> + * so:
>>> + * divh = (i2c_rate * high_ratio) / (scl_rate * ratio_sum * 8) - 1
>>> + * divl = (i2c_rate * low_ratio) / (scl_rate * ratio_sum * 8) - 1
>>> + */
>>> + *divh = DIV_ROUND_UP(i2c_rate * high_ratio, scl_rate * ratio_sum * 8);
>>> + if (*divh)
>>> + *divh = *divh - 1;
>>> +
>>> + *divl = DIV_ROUND_UP(i2c_rate * low_ratio, scl_rate * ratio_sum * 8);
>>> + if (*divl)
>>> + *divl = *divl - 1;
>>
>> When I sent you the sample formulas I purposely did it differently
>> than this. Any reason you changed from my formulas?
>>
>> div_low = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate * low_ratio, scl_rate * 8 * ratio_sum)
>> div_high = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate, scl_rate * 8) - div_low
>>
>> div_low -= 1
>> if div_high:
>> div_high -= 1
>>
>> Why did I do it that way?
>>
>> * Assuming i2c_rate and the ratio is non-zero then you can assume that
>> DIV_ROUND_UP gives a value that is >= 1. No need to test the result
>> against 0.
>>
>> * (I think) you'll get a more accurate clock rate by subtracting.
>>
>> Try running your formula vs. my formula with a ratio of 13 : 6, an i2c
>> rate of 12800000, and an scl rate of 400000
>>
>> Mine will get:
>> Req = 400000, act = 400000, 1.88 us low, 0.62 us high, low/high = 3.00
>>
>> Yours will get:
>> Req = 400000, act = 320000, 1.88 us low, 1.25 us high, low/high = 1.50
>>
> yes, you are right. yours is closer to the scl clock what we want to set.
>
> But if (clk_rate * low_ratio) can not be divisible by (scl_rate * 8 * ratio_sum),
> div_low will be round up, and div _high will be round down.
> The gap between div_low and div_high is increased.
Is that important? As far as I can tell as long as we are meeting the
minimum requirements for low and high hold times then we're OK.
> so maybe we can set:
> div_high = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate * high_ratio, scl_rate * 8 * ratio_sum)
> div_low = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate, scl_rate * 8) - div_low
>
> i2c rate is 128Mhz:
> 1) calculate div_high first:
> div_high = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate * high_ratio, scl_rate * 8 * ratio_sum)
> div_low = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate, scl_rate * 8) - div_low
>
> req = 400000, act = 400000, div_high = 13, div_low = 27
>
> 2) calculate div_low first:
> div_low = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate * low_ratio, scl_rate * 8 * ratio_sum)
> div_high = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate, scl_rate * 8) - div_low
>
> req = 400000, act = 400000, div_high = 12, div_high = 28
>
> I think that the first is more appropriate.
I guess I was biasing towards making low a little longer instead of
biasing towards keeping high and low the same. I'm not sure the bias
is terribly critical.
In any case, I spent more time testing and I realized that my old
formulas could potentially violate hold times because I wasn't careful
enough. I've crafted some new code that is more careful to ensure
_both_ minimum hold times and minimum clock rate times.
Do you want to spin your patch with these new formulas, or do you
think I should?
(anyone else on the thread listening, feel free to comment).
---
def test_it(min_low_ns, min_high_ns, clk_rate, scl_rate):
min_total_ns = min_low_ns + min_high_ns
# We need the total div to be >= this number so we don't clock too fast.
min_total_div = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate, scl_rate * 8);
# These are the min dividers needed for hold times.
min_low_div = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate * min_low_ns, 8 * 1000000000)
min_high_div = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate * min_high_ns, 8 * 1000000000)
min_div_for_hold = (min_low_div + min_high_div)
if min_div_for_hold > min_total_div:
# Time needed to meet hold requirements is important. Just use that
div_low = min_low_div
div_high = min_high_div
else:
# We've got to distribute some time among the low and high so we
# don't run too fast.
extra_div = min_total_div - min_div_for_hold
# We'll try to split things up perfectly evenly, biasing slightly
# towards having a higher div for low (spend more time low).
ideal_low_div = DIV_ROUND_UP(clk_rate * min_low_ns,
scl_rate * 8 * min_total_ns)
# Handle when the ideal low div is going to take up more than we have
if ideal_low_div > min_low_div + extra_div:
assert ideal_low_div == min_low_div + extra_div + 1
ideal_low_div = min_low_div + extra_div
# Give low the "ideal" and give high whatever extra is left.
div_low = ideal_low_div
div_high = min_high_div + (extra_div - (ideal_low_div - min_low_div))
# Adjust to the fact that the hardware has an implicit "+1".
# NOTE: Above calculations always produce div_low > 0 and div_high > 0.
div_low -= 1
div_high -= 1
T_pclk_us = 1000000. / clk_rate
T_sclk_us = 1000000. / scl_rate
T_low_us = T_pclk_us * (div_low + 1) * 8
T_high_us = T_pclk_us * (div_high + 1) * 8
T_tot_us = (T_high_us + T_low_us)
freq = 1000000. / T_tot_us
if T_low_us * 1000 < min_low_ns:
print "ERROR: not low long enough"
if T_high_us * 1000 < min_high_ns:
print "ERROR: not high long enough"
print "CLK = %d, Req = %d, act = %.2f, %.2f us low, " \
"%.2f us high, low/high = %.2f" % (
clk_rate, scl_rate, freq, T_low_us,
T_high_us, T_low_us / T_high_us)
return (clk_rate, scl_rate, freq, T_low_us, T_high_us)
test_it(4700, 4000, 1484000, 100000)
test_it(4700, 4000, 2000001, 100000)
test_it(4700, 4000, 74250000, 99799)
test_it(4700, 4000, 74250000, 99798)
test_it(4700, 4000, 74250000, 99797)
test_it(4700, 4000, 74250000, 100000)
test_it(1300, 600, 5000000, 400000)
test_it(1300, 600, 9400000, 400000)
test_it(1300, 600, 74250000, 400000)
test_it(1300, 600, 12800000, 400000)
test_it(1300, 600, 6400000, 400000)
test_it(1300, 600, 3200000, 400000)
test_it(1300, 600, 1600000, 400000)
test_it(1300, 600, 800000, 400000)
for i in xrange(800000, 74250000, 100):
test_it(4700, 4000, i, 100000)
for i in xrange(800000, 74250000, 100):
test_it(1300, 600, i, 400000)
--
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
