[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPz6YkWe9tkn7BehGOurbq6omvTpYi170G0z6T+OijngOADRQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:44:02 -0800
From: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Chris Zhong <zyw@...k-chips.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RTC: RK808: fix the rtc time reading issue
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> Sonny,
>
>> Chris, it looks like you swapped the set and the clear of this bit,
>> and you're relying on the fact that the i2c transaction takes a
>> certain amount of time after the RTC_GET_TIME BIT is set. I'm not
>> sure how long it actually takes, but why not just put in a usleep()
>> for the minimum wait time?
>
> I think we are safe.
>
> At 400kHz (the max speed of this part) each bit can be transferred no
> faster than 2.5us. In order to do a valid i2c transaction we need to
> _at least_ write the address of the device and the data onto the bus,
> which is 16 bits. 16 * 2.5us = 40us. That's above the 31.25us
>
> Personally I think what Chris has is fine, with the comment.
Ok, I'm fine with that if we're sure it's slow enough. Comment
explaining would certainly help.
>
> -Doug
--
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