On 2018-07-16 12:37, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:49 PM Wolfram Sang
> <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> When we we initialize the pins, make sure it looks like STOP by dividing
>> the delay into halves. It shouldn't matter because SDA is expected to be
>> held low by a device, but for super-safety, let's do it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
>> index 51cbb0c158f2..e57231ccb32a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
>> @@ -191,9 +191,10 @@ int i2c_generic_scl_recovery(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>> bri->prepare_recovery(adap);
>>
>> bri->set_scl(adap, scl);
>> + ndelay(RECOVERY_NDELAY / 2);
>
> Any change someone changes RECOVERY_NDELAY to 1, leading to a
> zero delay here? Is that an issue?
No!
Above this, there is this line:
#define RECOVERY_NDELAY 5000
Cheers,
Peter
>> if (bri->set_sda)
>> - bri->set_sda(adap, 1);
>> - ndelay(RECOVERY_NDELAY);
>> + bri->set_sda(adap, scl);
>> + ndelay(RECOVERY_NDELAY / 2);
>>
>> /*
>> * By this time SCL is high, as we need to give 9 falling-rising edges
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
