[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <76e73cc7-fdb7-45bb-6270-1f668969ad50@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 21:42:01 +0530
From: Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@...ision.eu>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] Documentation: devicetree: Add property for
ignoring the dummy bits sent before read transfer
Hi Rob,
On 15/12/20 3:53 am, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 08:34:57PM +0530, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 11/12/20 9:03 am, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 11:27:07PM +0530, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>>>> Dummy zero bits are sent before data during a read transfer. This causes
>>>> the data read to be shifted to the right. To fix this send zero bits after
>>>> the address during a read transfer.
>>>>
>>>> Add property to send zero bits after the address during a read transfer.
>>>
>>> When is this necessary? Why can't it be implied by the compatible
>>> string which should be specific to the chip model?
>>>
>>
>> This is necessary for 93AA46A/B/C, 93LC46A/B/C, 93C46A/B/C eeproms, as
>> it can be seen in section 2.7 of [1]. We were not sure if these were the
>> only devices supported by the driver(eeprom_93xx46.c). So, in order to
>> apply this only to the above listed devices, we thought that it would be
>> better to apply this change when required by introducing a DT property.
>>
>> May I know how has this case been handled till now ??
>>
>
> No idea. From the at93c46d (which has a compatible string) datasheet it
> looks like it has the same thing.
>
>> If this is required by all the devices then we can drop the property and
>> include the zero bit by default.
>
> Looks like you need a combination of compatible strings for the above
> devices and a property for the ORG pin state on the C devices. I assume
> s/w needs to know if x8 or x16?
>
Yes, there are separate properties for indicating different types of
types of eeproms.
So, do you think that it is better to add it as a seperate property??
Thanks,
Aswath
> Rob
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists