[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOAejn1NQDJpGrTwGtpvSfVOGg3UuCkj8wLJ7B5LnW1-Z2VrQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:01:31 +0200
From: "M'boumba Cedric Madianga" <cedric.madianga@...il.com>
To: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>
Cc: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] i2c: Add STM32F4 I2C driver
Hi Maxime,
>>> +static void stm32f4_i2c_set_speed_mode(struct stm32f4_i2c_dev *i2c_dev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct stm32f4_i2c_timings *t = &i2c_timings[i2c_dev->speed];
>>> + u32 ccr, val, clk_rate;
>>> +
>>> + ccr = readl_relaxed(i2c_dev->base + STM32F4_I2C_CCR);
>>> + ccr &= ~(STM32F4_I2C_CCR_FS | STM32F4_I2C_CCR_DUTY |
>>> + STM32F4_I2C_CCR_CCR_MASK);
>>> +
>>> + clk_rate = clk_get_rate(i2c_dev->clk);
>>> +
>>> + switch (i2c_dev->speed) {
>>> + case STM32F4_I2C_SPEED_STANDARD:
>>> + val = clk_rate / t->rate * 2;
>>> + if (val < STM32F4_I2C_MIN_CCR)
>>> + ccr |= STM32F4_I2C_CCR_CCR(STM32F4_I2C_MIN_CCR);
>>> + else
>>> + ccr |= STM32F4_I2C_CCR_CCR(val);
>>> + break;
>>> + case STM32F4_I2C_SPEED_FAST:
>>> + ccr |= STM32F4_I2C_CCR_FS;
>>> + if (t->duty) {
>>> + ccr |= STM32F4_I2C_CCR_DUTY;
>>> + ccr |= STM32F4_I2C_CCR_CCR(clk_rate / t->rate * 25);
>>> + } else {
>>> + ccr |= STM32F4_I2C_CCR_CCR(clk_rate / t->rate * 3);
>>> + }
>> Is it really useful since duty seems to always be 0?
> Agree, I will rework it by directly set duty at 0 in the register.
Contrary to what I wrote previously, the duty has to be set for FAST
Mode to reach 400khz.
So, I am going to keep the timing struct and set duty to 1 for FAST mode
Powered by blists - more mailing lists