Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Leo Li wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Tracy Smith wrote: >> Hello, bus recovery is needed generally speaking because of potential >> protocol errors that might cause a failure condition hanging the bus. >> >>

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Leo Li wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Tracy Smith wrote: >> Hello, bus recovery is needed generally speaking because of potential >> protocol errors that might cause a failure condition hanging the bus. >> >> It happens frequently during bring-up of

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:34:31PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote: >> Yeah it is a bit a wording thing: In my understanding, pinctrl is >> required on SoC's witch have a pin controller... It is just

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:34:31PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote: >> Yeah it is a bit a wording thing: In my understanding, pinctrl is >> required on SoC's witch have a pin controller... It is just that the >> driver does not need

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Tracy Smith wrote: > Hello, bus recovery is needed generally speaking because of potential > protocol errors that might cause a failure condition hanging the bus. > > It happens frequently during bring-up of new I2C devices because firmware

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Tracy Smith wrote: > Hello, bus recovery is needed generally speaking because of potential > protocol errors that might cause a failure condition hanging the bus. > > It happens frequently during bring-up of new I2C devices because firmware in > I2C controllers

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:37:12 -0500 Leo Li wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Agner wrote: >> > On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: > [...] >> >> people fix problem that they

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:37:12 -0500 Leo Li wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Agner wrote: >> > On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: > [...] >> >> people fix problem that they don't really care by deliberately enlarge

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

Hi, On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:37:12 -0500 Leo Li wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Agner wrote: > > On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: [...] > >> people fix problem that they don't really care by deliberately enlarge > >> the problem. That's why we don't panic() on

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

Hi, On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:37:12 -0500 Leo Li wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Agner wrote: > > On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: [...] > >> people fix problem that they don't really care by deliberately enlarge > >> the problem. That's why we don't panic() on any error we

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

Hello, On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:34:31PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote: > Yeah it is a bit a wording thing: In my understanding, pinctrl is > required on SoC's witch have a pin controller... It is just that the > driver does not need to get the pinctrl by itself because the stack is > taking care of

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

Hello, On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:34:31PM -0700, Stefan Agner wrote: > Yeah it is a bit a wording thing: In my understanding, pinctrl is > required on SoC's witch have a pin controller... It is just that the > driver does not need to get the pinctrl by itself because the stack is > taking care of

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On 2016-09-09 12:37, Leo Li wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Agner wrote: >> On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM,

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On 2016-09-09 12:37, Leo Li wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Agner wrote: >> On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >> On

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >>> On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote:

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >>> On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: >> On

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >> On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM,

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >> On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König > wrote:

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >>> On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >>> On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >> On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König >>> wrote: On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On 2016-09-06 15:40, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >> On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König >>> wrote: On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: > @@ -1081,8 +1090,11 @@ static int

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Tracy Smith wrote: > Hello, bus recovery is needed generally speaking because of potential > protocol errors that might cause a failure condition hanging the bus. > > It happens frequently during bring-up of new I2C devices because firmware

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Tracy Smith wrote: > Hello, bus recovery is needed generally speaking because of potential > protocol errors that might cause a failure condition hanging the bus. > > It happens frequently during bring-up of new I2C devices because firmware in > I2C controllers

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

Hello, On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 06:35:38PM -0500, Tracy Smith wrote: > >The patch makes it really optional that > >the probe function won't bailout but just disable the bus recovery function > >when pinctrl is not available. > > in the case of the LS1043A and LS1021A, if the bus recovery function

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

Hello, On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 06:35:38PM -0500, Tracy Smith wrote: > >The patch makes it really optional that > >the probe function won't bailout but just disable the bus recovery function > >when pinctrl is not available. > > in the case of the LS1043A and LS1021A, if the bus recovery function

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:06:41PM -0500, Leo Li wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:06:41PM -0500, Leo Li wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: >> >> Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the driver

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König > wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: >>> Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the >>> driver starts to use gpio/pinctrl

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On 2016-09-06 13:06, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König > wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: >>> Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the >>> driver starts to use gpio/pinctrl to do i2c bus recovery. But

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:06:41PM -0500, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König > wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: > >> Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the > >> driver

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:06:41PM -0500, Leo Li wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König > wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: > >> Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the > >> driver starts to use gpio/pinctrl to do i2c

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: >> Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the >> driver starts to use gpio/pinctrl to do i2c bus recovery. But pinctrl >> is

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: >> Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the >> driver starts to use gpio/pinctrl to do i2c bus recovery. But pinctrl >> is not always available for

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: > Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the > driver starts to use gpio/pinctrl to do i2c bus recovery. But pinctrl > is not always available for platforms with this controller such as ls1021a > and ls1043a, and the

Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Li Yang wrote: > Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the > driver starts to use gpio/pinctrl to do i2c bus recovery. But pinctrl > is not always available for platforms with this controller such as ls1021a > and ls1043a, and the

[PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the driver starts to use gpio/pinctrl to do i2c bus recovery. But pinctrl is not always available for platforms with this controller such as ls1021a and ls1043a, and the device tree binding also mentioned this gpio based recovery

[PATCH v5] i2c: imx: make bus recovery through pinctrl optional

Since commit 1c4b6c3bcf30 ("i2c: imx: implement bus recovery") the driver starts to use gpio/pinctrl to do i2c bus recovery. But pinctrl is not always available for platforms with this controller such as ls1021a and ls1043a, and the device tree binding also mentioned this gpio based recovery