>
> I am using 2.6.30 and I think it is fairly equal to yours.
> I am not using either property above so the linux i2c-mpc. driver falls back
> to fdr=0x31 and dfsr=0x10 and this works well. It is u-boot that isn't
> working.
> However, I have found a few driver bugs in the u-boot driver and fixin
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote on 15/09/2009 13:53:13:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >>
> >>> I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
> >>> (see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
> >>> some time ago using Timu
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>
>>> I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
>>> (see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
>>> some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
>>> between the ta
>
> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>
> > I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
> > (see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
> > some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
> > between the table and the algorithm to
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>
>> I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
>> (see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
>> some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
>> between the table and the
>
> Timur Tabi wrote:
> > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >
> >> I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
> >> (see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
> >> some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
> >> between th
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
> (see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
> some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
> between the table and the algorithm to calculate th
Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Timur,
>
>> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>
>>> This will generate the same divisor tables as AN2919, tables 6-9.
>>> I do not take condition 2 into consideration as it not clear how to
>>> deal with it and it does not seem to have an significant impact.
>>>
>>> What do you th
Hi Timur,
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
>> This will generate the same divisor tables as AN2919, tables 6-9.
>> I do not take condition 2 into consideration as it not clear how to
>> deal with it and it does not seem to have an significant impact.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I really don't have ti
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> This will generate the same divisor tables as AN2919, tables 6-9.
> I do not take condition 2 into consideration as it not clear how to
> deal with it and it does not seem to have an significant impact.
>
> What do you think?
I really don't have time to deal with it rig
>
> Timur Tabi wrote on 10/09/2009 18:13:03:
> >
> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > > This calculation does not seem to match AN2919.
> >
> > When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today.
> >
> > > Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr!=
Timur Tabi wrote on 10/09/2009 18:13:03:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > This calculation does not seem to match AN2919.
>
> When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today.
>
> > Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr!= 1)
> > Table 7 is va
Timur Tabi wrote on 10/09/2009 18:13:03:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > This calculation does not seem to match AN2919.
>
> When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today.
>
> > Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr!= 1)
> > Table 7 is va
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> This calculation does not seem to match AN2919.
When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today.
> Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr!= 1)
> Table 7 is valid for 1 <= dfsr <=5 so how about replacing the current
Timur Tabi wrote on 10/09/2009 17:26:29:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Looking a bit harder at the table I don't understand some entries, where
> > does
> > the entries with dfsr != 1 come from? They don't look like any table in
> > AN2919
>
> They're all calculated. I entered the algorit
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> From AN2919, chap. 4.1:
> C <= 50*T, C is dfsr and T is i2c_period in nano seconds.
Argh, my copy of AN2919 is old! Mine doesn't have any of this stuff in it.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
___
U-Boot maili
Timur Tabi wrote on 10/09/2009 17:22:38:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Come on, just because my board is somewhat broken, it doesn't mean the
> > driver is correct. If I define my speed to 100KHz I get
> > a DFSR of 22, way over what is allowed for my board.
>
> Why is a value of 22 over what
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Looking a bit harder at the table I don't understand some entries, where does
> the entries with dfsr != 1 come from? They don't look like any table in AN2919
They're all calculated. I entered the algorithm into a spreadsheet and
determined every possible combination o
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Come on, just because my board is somewhat broken, it doesn't mean the
> driver is correct. If I define my speed to 100KHz I get
> a DFSR of 22, way over what is allowed for my board.
Why is a value of 22 over what is allowed on the board? I was under the
impression th
Timur Tabi wrote on 10/09/2009 15:29:35:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> >> A while back, someone posted a version of this code that computed the
> >> values
> >> of fdr/dfsr. I nack'd that patch because I thought the algorithm was too
> >
> > Not so sure about that, but I haven't tried to calc
Timur Tabi wrote on 10/09/2009 15:29:35:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> >> A while back, someone posted a version of this code that computed the
> >> values
> >> of fdr/dfsr. I nack'd that patch because I thought the algorithm was too
> >
> > Not so sure about that, but I haven't tried to calc
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> A while back, someone posted a version of this code that computed the values
>> of fdr/dfsr. I nack'd that patch because I thought the algorithm was too
>
> Not so sure about that, but I haven't tried to calc it generally.
A quick way to check this is to figure out wh
Timur Tabi wrote on 10/09/2009 15:07:36:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > BTW, the fdr and dfsr calculations appears totally bogus. It seems
> > like the table is taken from some examples in AN2919 and it is pure luck
> > that it works most of the time. For me it does not work 100%, instead I get
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> BTW, the fdr and dfsr calculations appears totally bogus. It seems
> like the table is taken from some examples in AN2919 and it is pure luck
> that it works most of the time. For me it does not work 100%, instead I get
> random errors which hangs both the controller and
> timur.t...@gmail.com wrote on 09/09/2009 16:24:15:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Joakim
> > Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if this hides another problem too.
> > > if the timeout hits, -1 is returned.
> > >
> > > Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:
> > > if (i2c_wait4
timur.t...@gmail.com wrote on 09/09/2009 16:24:15:
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Joakim
> Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if this hides another problem too.
> > if the timeout hits, -1 is returned.
> >
> > Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:
> > if (i2c_wait4bus() >= 0
> >
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Joakim
Tjernlund wrote:
>
> I wonder if this hides another problem too.
> if the timeout hits, -1 is returned.
>
> Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:
> if (i2c_wait4bus() >= 0
> && i2c_write_addr(dev, I2C_WRITE_BIT, 0) != 0
> && __i
I wonder if this hides another problem too.
if the timeout hits, -1 is returned.
Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:
if (i2c_wait4bus() >= 0
&& i2c_write_addr(dev, I2C_WRITE_BIT, 0) != 0
&& __i2c_write(&a[4 - alen], alen) == alen)
i = 0; /* No
28 matches
Mail list logo
