[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2e2c3b98-20a6-2671-ad74-a0f171073bd0@axentia.se>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:05:31 +0200
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Quentin Strydom <quentin.strydom@...wireless.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: mux: pca9541: Change to correct bus control
commands
On 2020-06-02 14:12, Quentin Strydom wrote:
> Change current bus commands to match the pca9541a datasheet
> (see table 12 on page 14 of
> https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/PCA9541A.pdf). Also
> where entries are marked as no change the current control
> command is repeated as the current master reading the
> control register has control of the bus and bus is on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Strydom <quentin.strydom@...wireless.com>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca9541.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca9541.c b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca9541.c
> index 6a39ada..50808fa 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca9541.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca9541.c
> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static void pca9541_release_bus(struct i2c_client *client)
>
> /* Control commands per PCA9541 datasheet */
> static const u8 pca9541_control[16] = {
> - 4, 0, 1, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 4, 5, 1
> + 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 7, 8, 0, 1, 11, 0, 0, 1, 1
> };
>
> /*
I found all your mails from git send-email in my spam folder. They probably
lack some headers that have become increasingly important... [Don't ask me
for further details.]
I do not have the HW to test this. I'm only going by the datasheet.
But yes, pca9541_control[1] and [2] indeed seem exchanged with [13] and [14].
However, pca9541_control[5], [7], [8], and [11] are never used AFAICT.
Trying to write 7, 8 and 11 also attempts to write various read-only bits
and makes no sense. So, I'd skip those changes.
All that said, I'm a bit skeptic as to why this has worked at all if this
is incorrect. I would like to see a more detailed failure description that
could explain why this change is indeed "it".
Cheers,
Peter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists