2017-01-12 22:10 GMT+01:00 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:58:23PM +0100, M'boumba Cedric Madianga wrote: >> 2017-01-12 18:49 GMT+01:00 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:47:42PM +0100, M'boumba Cedric Madianga wrote: >> >> 2017-01-12 13:03 GMT+01:00 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > Hello Cedric, >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:23:12PM +0100, M'boumba Cedric Madianga wrote: >> >> >> 2017-01-11 16:39 GMT+01:00 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 02:58:44PM +0100, M'boumba Cedric Madianga wrote: >> >> >> >> 2017-01-11 9:22 GMT+01:00 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> >> >> > This is surprising. I didn't recheck the manual, but that looks very >> >> >> >> > uncomfortable. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I agree but this exactly the hardware way of working described in the >> >> >> >> reference manual. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > IMHO that's a hw bug. This makes it for example impossible to implement >> >> >> > SMBus block transfers (I think). >> >> >> >> >> >> This is not correct. >> >> >> Setting STOP/START bit does not mean the the pulse will be sent right now. >> >> >> Here we have just to prepare the hardware for the 2 next pulse but the >> >> >> STOP/START/ACK pulse will be generated at the right time as required >> >> >> by I2C specification. >> >> >> So SMBus block transfer will be possible. >> >> > >> >> > A block transfer consists of a byte that specifies the count of bytes >> >> > yet to come. So the device sends for example: >> >> > >> >> > 0x01 0xab >> >> > >> >> > So when you read the 1 in the first byte it's already too late to set >> >> > STOP to get it after the 2nd byte. >> >> > >> >> > Not sure I got all the required details right, though. >> >> >> >> Ok I understand your use case but I always think that the harware manages it. >> >> If I take the above example, the I2C SMBus block read transaction will >> >> be as below: >> >> S Addr Wr [A] Comm [A] >> >> S Addr Rd [A] [Count] A [Data1] A [Data2] NA P >> >> >> >> The first message is a single byte-transmission so there is no problem. >> >> >> >> The second message is a N-byte reception with N = 3 >> >> >> >> When the I2C controller has finished to send the device address (S >> >> Addr Rd), the ADDR flag is set and an interrupt is raised. >> >> In the routine that handles ADDR event, we set ACK bit in order to >> >> generate ACK pulse as soon as a data byte is received in the shift >> >> register and then we clear the ADDR flag. >> >> Please note that the SCL line is stretched low until ADDR flag is cleared. >> >> So, as far I understand, the device could not sent any data as long as >> >> the SCL line is stretched low. Right ? >> >> >> >> Then, as soon as the SCL line is high, the device could send the first >> >> data byte (Count). >> >> When this byte is received in the shift register, an ACK is >> >> automatically generated as defined during adress match phase and the >> >> data byte is pushed in DR (data register). >> >> Then, an interrupt is raised as RXNE (RX not empty) flag is set. >> >> In the routine that handles RXNE event, as N=3, we just clear all >> >> buffer interrupts in order to avoid another system preemption due to >> >> RXNE event but we does not read the data in DR. >> > >> > In my example I want to receive a block of length 1, so only two bytes >> > are read, a 1 (the length) and the data byte (0xab in my example). I >> > think that as soon as you read the 1 it's already to late to schedule >> > the NA after the next byte? >> >> Not really. This 2-byte reception is also correctly managed. >> Indeed, in this case, when the controller has sent the device address, >> the ADDR flag is set and an interrupt is raised. >> So, as long as the ADDR flag is not cleared, the SCL line is stretched >> low and the device could not send any data. >> During this address match phase, for a 2-byte reception, we enable >> NACK and set POS bit (ACK/NACK position). >> As POS=1, the NACK will be sent for the next byte which will be >> received in the shift register instead of the current one. >> So in this example, the next byte will be the last one. >> After that, we clear the ADDR flag and the device is allowed to send data. > > I didn't follow, but if you are convinced it works that's good. I wonder > if it simplifies the driver if POS=1 is used and so ACK/NACK can be > setup later? Please see below a quote from datasheet that clearly described how to handle For 2-byte reception: ● Wait until ADDR = 1 (SCL stretched low until the ADDR flag is cleared) ● Set ACK low, set POS high ● Clear ADDR flag ● Wait until BTF = 1 (Data 1 in DR, Data2 in shift register, SCL stretched low until a data1 is read) ● Set STOP high ● Read data 1 and 2 So we cannot set POS=1 and setup ACK/NACK later as you suggest. Best regards, Cedric -- 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
