Hi, On 28/03/2022 23:51, Lucas Tanure wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2022, 21:37 Kevin Hilman, <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: Hi Lucas, Lucas Tanure <tanure@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:tanure@xxxxxxxxx>> writes: > The default duty cycle of 33% is less than the required > by the I2C specs for the LOW period of the SCL clock. > > So, for 100Khz or less, use 50%H/50%L duty cycle, and > for the clock above 100Khz, use 40%H/60%L duty cycle. > That ensures the low period of SCL is always more than > the minimum required by the specs at any given frequency. Thanks for the fixes! This is going to affect all SoCs, so ould you please summarize how your changes were tested, and on which SoCs & boards? Thanks, Kevin Hi, I only tested against vim3 board, measured the bus with an saleae logic pro 16. The measurements were with 100k, 400k and a few in between frequencies. Is that enough?
I did a few measures on the Libre Computer Le Potato S905X board: i2c_AO: Before the patchset, I got: - 100KHz: 1.66uS HIGH, 6.75uS LOW, 20%/80%, Freq 118KHz /!\ - 400KHz: Unable to decode, clock line is invalid, Data line is also invalid With the patchset - 100KHz: 4.25uS HIGH, 6.58uS LOW, 40%/60%, Freq 92KHz - 400KHz: 0.33uS HIGH, 3.00uS LOW, 10%/90%, Freq 300KHz i2c_B: Before the patchset, I got: - 100KHz: 2.25uS HIGH, 5.41uS LOW, 29%/71%, Freq 130KHz /!\ - 400KHz: 0.42uS HIGH, 1.66uS LOW, 20%/80%, Freq 480KHz /!\ With the patchset - 100KHz: 4.75uS HIGH, 5.42uS LOW, 46%/54%, Freq 98KHz - 400KHz: 0.66uS HIGH, 2.00uS LOW, 24%/75%, Freq 375KHz So this fixes the frequency, before they were invalid. And it fixes 400KHz on i2c_AO... I do not understand why behavior is different between i2c_AO & i2c_B, they are feed with the same clock so it should be the same. Did you check on both i2c interfaces ? can you share your results ? Neil
Thanks Lucas
