> The comment refers to datasheet, not really to the code. And eventual changes
> to the datasheet
> that's what can make it invalid (though I don't know TI's plans on it).
> Nevertheless, yes, I
> think, it's better to drop the comment. Should I re-spin the patch with
> comment removal in it?
Hi!
On 30.11.2015 14:55, EXT Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> /* get minimum of 7 MHz clock, but max of 12 MHz */
>> > - psc = (input_clock / 700) - 1;
>> > + psc = (input_clock / 1200) - 1;
> Doesn't make this the above comment invalid?
The comment refers to datasheet, not really to the cod
> /* get minimum of 7 MHz clock, but max of 12 MHz */
> - psc = (input_clock / 700) - 1;
> + psc = (input_clock / 1200) - 1;
Doesn't make this the above comment invalid?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 11/19/2015 4:21 AM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
I2C controller used in Keystone SoC has an undocumented peculiarity which
results in SDA-SCL margins being dependent on module clock. Driving high
capacity bus near its limits can result in STOP condition sometimes being
understood as REPEATED-STAR
I2C controller used in Keystone SoC has an undocumented peculiarity which
results in SDA-SCL margins being dependent on module clock. Driving high
capacity bus near its limits can result in STOP condition sometimes being
understood as REPEATED-START by slaves (or NACK instead of ACK, etc...).
Drivi
