Date:	Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:56:49 +0900
From:	Shinya Kuribayashi <skuribay@...ox.com>
To:	mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com
CC:	christian.ruppert@...lis.com, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	wsa@...-dreams.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-designware: make *CNT values configurable

On 7/11/13 7:13 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:36:00AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:56:35PM +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:52:15PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:19:28PM +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>>>> What I meant is the following: The clock cycle time Tc is composed of
>>>>> the four components
>>>>>
>>>>>    Tc = Th + Tf + Tl + Tr
>>>>>
>>>>> where
>>>>>    Th: Time during which the signal is high
>>>>>    Tf: Falling edge transition time
>>>>>    Tl: Time during which the signal is low
>>>>>    Tr: Rising edge transition time
>>>>>
>>>>> The I2C specification specifies a minimum for Tl and Th and a range (or
>>>>> maximum) for Tr and Tf. A maximum frequency is specified as the
>>>>> frequency obtained by adding the minima for Th and Tl to the maxima of
>>>>> Tr ant Tf.
>>>>> Since as you said, transition times are very much PCB dependent, one way
>>>>> to guarantee the max. frequency constraint (and to achieve a constant
>>>>> frequency at its max) is to define the constants
>>>>> Th' = Th + Tf := Th_min + Tf_max
>>>>> Tl' = Tl + Tr := Tl_min + Tr_max
>>>>>
>>>>> and to calculate the variables
>>>>> Th = Th' - Tf
>>>>> Tl = Tl' - Tr
>>>>> in function of Tf and Tr of the given PCB.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand the above, it leaves Tf and Tr to be PCB specific and then
>>>> these values are passed to the core driver from platform data, right?
>>>
>>> That would be the idea: Calculate Th' and Tl' in function of the desired
>>> clock frequency and duty cycle and then adapt these values using
>>> measured transition times. What prevented me from implementing this
>>> rather academic approach are the following comments in
>>> i2c-designware-core.c:

When we talk about I2C timing specs, we should not bring up "clock speed"
things.  All we have to do is to strictly meet timing constraints of
tHIGH, tLOW, tHD;SATA, tr, tf, etc.  The resulting "clock speed" is not
a goal.

>>> /*
>>>   * DesignWare I2C core doesn't seem to have solid strategy to meet
>>>   * the tHD;STA timing spec.  Configuring _HCNT based on tHIGH spec
>>>   * will result in violation of the tHD;STA spec.
>>>   */
>>>
>>> /* ...
>>>   * This is just experimental rule; the tHD;STA period
>>>   * turned out to be proportinal to (_HCNT + 3).  With this setting,
>>>   * we could meet both tHIGH and tHD;STA timing specs.
>>>   * ...
>>>   */
>>>
>>> If I interpret this right, the slow down of the clock is intentional to
>>> meet tHD;STA timing constraints.

Correct.

>> Yeah, looks like so. tHD;STA is the SDA hold time. I wonder if the above
>> comments apply to some earlier version of the IP that didn't have the SDA
>> hold register?

If I remember DesignWare APB I2C spec correctly, SDA hold time register
doesn't help to meet tHD;STA spec.  Could someone confirm it really so
with a real hardware, please?

   Shinya

> Scratch that.
>
> I re-read the spec and tHD;STA is hold time for (repeated) start. There is
> a constraint that says that the device must internally provide a hold time
> of at least 300ns for the SDA signal. Maybe that's the constraint the
> comment above is referring to?
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists