On 07/22/2013 05:33 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 02:27:08PM -0700, York Sun wrote: >> Erratum A-006037 indicates I2C controller executes the write to I2CCR only >> after it sees SCL idle for 64K cycle of internal I2C controller clocks. If >> during this waiting period, I2C controller is disabled (I2CCR[MEN] set to >> 0), then the controller could end in bad state, and hang the future access >> to I2C register. >> >> The mpc_i2c_fixup() function tries to recover the bus from a stalled state >> where the 9th clock pulse wasn't generated. However, this workaround >> disables and enables I2C controller without meeting waiting requirement of >> this erratum. >> >> This erratum applies to some 85xx SoCs. It is safe to apply to all of them >> for mpc_i2c_fixup(). >> >> Signed-off-by: York Sun <york...@freescale.com> >> >> --- >> I'd like to get rid of the #ifdef if mpc5121 is OK with the longer delay. > > Are mpc5121 and mpc85xx the only things that use this?
No. 83xx and 86xx also uses this file. But I am only unsure if mpc52xx is OK with this extended delay. I guess they are but I don't have a proof, or someone to confirm. > > Are you sure the delay always works out to be longer? What is the > relationship between fsl_get_sys_freq() and i2c->real_clk? Yes. The max divider from sys clock to i2c clcok is 32K. i2c->real_clk is the clock I2C controller pumps out, not its internal operation clock. > > In any case, you should send this patch to the i2c maintainer and list. > I don't have the name on top of my head. Is that linux-...@vger.kernel.org? York _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev