On 10/23/2023 4:11 PM, Huangzheng Lai wrote:
Add support for 1Mhz and 3.4Mhz frequency configuration.
Signed-off-by: Huangzheng Lai <Huangzheng.Lai@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sprd.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sprd.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sprd.c
index ffc54fbf814d..b44916c6741d 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sprd.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sprd.c
@@ -343,10 +343,23 @@ static void sprd_i2c_set_clk(struct sprd_i2c *i2c_dev, u32 freq)
writel(div1, i2c_dev->base + ADDR_DVD1);
/* Start hold timing = hold time(us) * source clock */
- if (freq == I2C_MAX_FAST_MODE_FREQ)
- writel((6 * apb_clk) / 10000000, i2c_dev->base + ADDR_STA0_DVD);
- else if (freq == I2C_MAX_STANDARD_MODE_FREQ)
+ switch (freq) {
+ case I2C_MAX_STANDARD_MODE_FREQ:
writel((4 * apb_clk) / 1000000, i2c_dev->base + ADDR_STA0_DVD);
+ break;
+ case I2C_MAX_FAST_MODE_FREQ:
+ writel((6 * apb_clk) / 10000000, i2c_dev->base + ADDR_STA0_DVD);
+ break;
+ case I2C_MAX_FAST_MODE_PLUS_FREQ:
+ writel((8 * apb_clk) / 10000000, i2c_dev->base + ADDR_STA0_DVD);
+ break;
+ case I2C_MAX_HIGH_SPEED_MODE_FREQ:
+ writel((8 * apb_clk) / 10000000, i2c_dev->base + ADDR_STA0_DVD);
+ break;
+ default:
+ dev_err(i2c_dev->dev, "Unsupported frequency: %d\n", freq);
+ break;
+ }
}
static void sprd_i2c_enable(struct sprd_i2c *i2c_dev)
@@ -519,9 +532,11 @@ static int sprd_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (!of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "clock-frequency", &prop))
i2c_dev->bus_freq = prop;
- /* We only support 100k and 400k now, otherwise will return error. */
+ /* We only support 100k\400k\1m\3.4m now, otherwise will return error. */
if (i2c_dev->bus_freq != I2C_MAX_STANDARD_MODE_FREQ &&
- i2c_dev->bus_freq != I2C_MAX_FAST_MODE_FREQ)
+ i2c_dev->bus_freq != I2C_MAX_FAST_MODE_FREQ &&
+ i2c_dev->bus_freq != I2C_MAX_FAST_MODE_PLUS_FREQ &&
+ i2c_dev->bus_freq != I2C_MAX_HIGH_SPEED_MODE_FREQ)
Can you keep the same alignment format as the previous code? Otherwise
look good to me.
Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
