On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:27:15PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:42:41PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > 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? > > should be. ping ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
