On 13-Dec-16 14:11, Rob Herring wrote:
> Again, please don't top post. And your line wrapping is messed up.
> IOW, you can't use Outlook.
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Luis de Oliveira
> <Luis.Oliveira@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The controller for i2c-designware cannot be slave/master at the same time and it has to be enabled knowing beforehand if we want it to be slave or master by something outside of the controller itself.
>>
>> I as looking and I see the use of this I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS with the "linux,slave-24c02" slave interface but I am not seeing how it will help me identify a selected i2c-designware block as a "slave" device before instantiation. I'm sorry if I'm not understanding properly.
>> I use the "linux,slave-24c02" to instantiate the i2c-designware as a slave with an address so I can do write/read operations, it is how I tested it.
>
> Something like this:
>
> of_for_each_child_node(child) {
> of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", ®);
> if (reg & I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS))
> im_a_slave = true;
> }
>
> ...rather than testing "mode" is equal to "slave".
>
> Rob
>
Hi Rob, Andy,
I'm struggling to implement your suggestion @Rob. I checked the
tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts that uses that approach but I have some doubts.
My DT is as follows
i2c@0x2000 {
compatible = "snps,designware-i2c";
reg = <0x2000 0x100>;
clock-frequency = <400000>;
clocks = <&i2cclk>;
interrupts = <0>;
I could add something like this:
eeprom@64 {
compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
reg = <(I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x64)>;
}
But I think this is different form what I was doing before. I have two questions:
- This way the I2C controller is identified as a slave controller or just the
subnode eeprom?
- This way looks like my slave address will be fixed
In the previous Patch v3 submission @Andy suggested a property that selects mode
that I did and it's working. And you @Rob suggested to do it a common property.
It is implemented in the DT like:
mode = "slave";
So before I do this changes can you please agree both if you still think this is
the best approach?
Thank you both for your time,
Luis
>>
>> Luis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Herring [mailto:robh@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 23:16
>> To: Luis de Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ramiro.Oliveira@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Joao.Pinto@xxxxxxxxxxxx; CARLOS.PALMINHA@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] i2c: designware: Add slave definitions
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Luis de Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please don't top post.
>>
>>>
>>> The slave address could be set by the I2C slave backend so I can't use it to setup the controller.
>>> A boolean property was my initial approach then Andy and Wolfram Sang suggested the use of compatible strings and later It was suggested to use a property to select mode but I can do it again if it's the best way.
>>> Can you please tell me where should it be documented?
>>
>> bindings/i2c/i2c.txt.
>>
>> Actually, looking at this some more, we already have a way to describe the controller being a slave device with the I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag in the reg property. We should just need a helper to read reg property of each child and check for the bit set.
>>
>> Rob
--
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
