On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:25:58PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:09:59AM +0200, Alexander Sverdlin wrote: > > Hello Felipe, > > > > On 17/06/15 21:31, ext Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > With this patch we try to be as close to 50% > > > duty cycle as possible. The reason for this > > > is that some devices present an erratic behavior > > > with certain duty cycles. > > > > > > One such example is TPS65218 PMIC which fails > > > to change voltages when running @ 400kHz and > > > duty cycle is lower than 34%. > > > > > > The idea of the patch is simple: > > > > > > calculate desired scl_period from requested scl > > > and use 50% for tLow and 50% for tHigh. > > > > > > tLow is calculated with a DIV_ROUND_UP() to make > > > sure it's slightly higher than tHigh and to make > > > sure that we end up within I2C specifications. > > > > if you refuse to change the calculations to achieve maximum possible > > bus rate (as I've shown you with SCLL=9 and SCLH=9), maybe you want to > > change the description? Because you are doing something else than is > > written here. You are only in spec because you are not doing 50% duty > > cycle. And you didn't mention here that you lower the bus speed below > > 400kHz to achieve this. > > and there's a comment where the calculation goes which states "as close > to 50% as possible but we make sure tLow is higher than tHigh so we're > still within spec". So, is that ready to go in for-next?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
