[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170118184237.tvhlsksdcw2ckwan@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:42:37 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: M'boumba Cedric Madianga <cedric.madianga@...il.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] i2c: Add STM32F4 I2C driver
Hello Cedric,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:21:17PM +0100, M'boumba Cedric Madianga wrote:
> >> + * In standard mode, the maximum allowed SCL rise time is 1000 ns.
> >> + * If, in the I2C_CR2 register, the value of FREQ[5:0] bits is equal to
> >> + * 0x08 so period = 125 ns therefore the TRISE[5:0] bits must be
> >> + * programmed with 09h.(1000 ns / 125 ns = 8 + 1)
> >
> > * programmed with 0x9.
> > (1000 ns / 125 ns = 8)
> >
> >> + * So, for I2C standard mode TRISE = FREQ[5:0] + 1
> >> + *
> >> + * In fast mode, the maximum allowed SCL rise time is 300 ns.
> >> + * If, in the I2C_CR2 register, the value of FREQ[5:0] bits is equal to
> >> + * 0x08 so period = 125 ns therefore the TRISE[5:0] bits must be
> >> + * programmed with 03h.(300 ns / 125 ns = 2 + 1)
> >
> > as above s/03h/0x3/;
>
> ok
>
> > s/.(/. (/;
> ok
>
> > s/+ 1//;
> This formula is use to understand how we find the result 0x3
> So, 0x3 => 300 ns / 125ns = 2 + 1
Yeah, I understood that, but writing 300 ns / 125ns = 2 + 1 is
irritating at best.
> >> + * So, for I2C fast mode TRISE = FREQ[5:0] * 300 / 1000 + 1
> >> + */
> >> + if (i2c_dev->speed == STM32F4_I2C_SPEED_STANDARD)
> >> + trise = freq + 1;
> >> + else
> >> + trise = freq * 300 / 1000 + 1;
> >
> > I'd use
> >
> > * 3 / 10
> >
> > without downside and lesser chance to overflow.
>
> There is no chance of overflow as the max freq value allowed is 46
ok
> >> + /*
> >> + * In fast mode, we compute CCR with duty = 0 as with low
> >> + * frequencies we are not able to reach 400 kHz.
> >> + * In that case:
> >> + * t_scl_high = CCR * I2C parent clk period
> >> + * t_scl_low = 2 * CCR * I2C parent clk period
> >> + * So, CCR = I2C parent rate / (400 kHz * 3)
> >> + *
> >> + * For example with parent rate = 6 MHz:
> >> + * CCR = 6000000 / (400000 * 3) = 5
> >> + * t_scl_high = 5 * (1 / 6000000) = 833 ns > 600 ns
> >> + * t_scl_low = 2 * 5 * (1 / 6000000) = 1667 ns > 1300 ns
> >> + * t_scl_high + t_scl_low = 2500 ns so 400 kHz is reached
> >> + */
> >
> > Huh, that's surprising. So you don't use DUTY any more. I found two
> > hints in the manual that contradict here:
>
> Yes with the above formula we could use duty = 0 by default
>
> >
> > f_{PCLK1} must be at least 2 MHz to achieve Sm mode I2C frequencies
>
> STM32F4_I2C_MIN_STANDARD_FREQ = 2
>
> > It must be at least 4 MHz to achieve Fm mode I2C frequencies.
>
> STM32F4_I2C_MIN_FAST_FREQ = 6
>
> > It must be a multiple of 10MHz to reach the 400 kHz maximum I2C Fm mode clock.
>
> If we use this rule only 3 values are allowed 10 Mhz, 20 Mhz, 30 Mhz and 40 Mhz.
> It is very restrictive.
> So I don't take it into account in order to have more frequencies even
> if 400 Khz is not reached.
> Indeed, in many cases we are very close to 400 Khz.
> For example, the default I2C parent clock in my board is 45 Mhz
> I reach 395 kHz in theory and 390 kHz by testing.
> I am in Fast mode but not with the max freq but very close.
fine
> > and
> >
> > [...]
> > If DUTY = 1: (to reach 400 kHz)
> >
> > Strange.
> >
> >> + val = DIV_ROUND_UP(i2c_dev->parent_rate, 400000 * 3);
> >
> > the manual reads:
> >
> > The minimum allowed value is 0x04, except in FAST DUTY mode
> > where the minimum allowed value is 0x01
> >
> > You don't check for that, right?
>
> As the minimum freq value is 6 Mhz in fast mode the minimum CCR is 5
> as described in the comment.
> So I don't need to check that again as it is already done by checking
> parent frequency.
That would then go into a comment.
> > CCR is 11 bits wide. A comment confirming that this cannot overflow
> > would be nice.
>
> Again there is no chance of overflow thanks to parent frequency check
Right, this time I saw this myself, so I requested a comment stating
this fact.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists