Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
(see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
between the table and the
Wolfgang Grandegger w...@grandegger.com wrote on 15/09/2009 13:53:13:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
(see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
some time ago using
I am using 2.6.30 and I think it is fairly equal to yours.
I am not using either property above so the linux i2c-mpc. driver falls back
to fdr=0x31 and dfsr=0x10 and this works well. It is u-boot that isn't
working.
However, I have found a few driver bugs in the u-boot driver and fixing
Hi Timur,
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
This will generate the same divisor tables as AN2919, tables 6-9.
I do not take condition 2 into consideration as it not clear how to
deal with it and it does not seem to have an significant impact.
What do you think?
I really don't have time to deal
Detlev Zundel wrote:
Hi Timur,
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
This will generate the same divisor tables as AN2919, tables 6-9.
I do not take condition 2 into consideration as it not clear how to
deal with it and it does not seem to have an significant impact.
What do you think?
I really don't
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
(see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
between the table and the algorithm to calculate the
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
(see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
between the table and the algorithm to calculate
Timur Tabi wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
(see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
between the table and the
Timur Tabi wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
I did not follow the thread yet, sorry. I implemented AN2819 for Linux
(see http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c)
some time ago using Timur's table approach. But there is no difference
between the table and the
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 18:13:03:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
This calculation does not seem to match AN2919.
When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today.
Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr!=
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
This will generate the same divisor tables as AN2919, tables 6-9.
I do not take condition 2 into consideration as it not clear how to
deal with it and it does not seem to have an significant impact.
What do you think?
I really don't have time to deal with it right
timur.t...@gmail.com wrote on 09/09/2009 16:24:15:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Joakim
Tjernlundjoakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
I wonder if this hides another problem too.
if the timeout hits, -1 is returned.
Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:
if
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
BTW, the fdr and dfsr calculations appears totally bogus. It seems
like the table is taken from some examples in AN2919 and it is pure luck
that it works most of the time. For me it does not work 100%, instead I get
random errors which hangs both the controller and the
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 15:07:36:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
BTW, the fdr and dfsr calculations appears totally bogus. It seems
like the table is taken from some examples in AN2919 and it is pure luck
that it works most of the time. For me it does not work 100%,
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
A while back, someone posted a version of this code that computed the values
of fdr/dfsr. I nack'd that patch because I thought the algorithm was too
Not so sure about that, but I haven't tried to calc it generally.
A quick way to check this is to figure out which
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 15:29:35:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
A while back, someone posted a version of this code that computed the
values
of fdr/dfsr. I nack'd that patch because I thought the algorithm was too
Not so sure about that, but I haven't tried to
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 15:29:35:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
A while back, someone posted a version of this code that computed the
values
of fdr/dfsr. I nack'd that patch because I thought the algorithm was too
Not so sure about that, but I haven't tried to
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Come on, just because my board is somewhat broken, it doesn't mean the
driver is correct. If I define my speed to 100KHz I get
a DFSR of 22, way over what is allowed for my board.
Why is a value of 22 over what is allowed on the board? I was under the
impression that
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Looking a bit harder at the table I don't understand some entries, where does
the entries with dfsr != 1 come from? They don't look like any table in AN2919
They're all calculated. I entered the algorithm into a spreadsheet and
determined every possible combination of
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 17:22:38:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Come on, just because my board is somewhat broken, it doesn't mean the
driver is correct. If I define my speed to 100KHz I get
a DFSR of 22, way over what is allowed for my board.
Why is a value of 22
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
From AN2919, chap. 4.1:
C = 50*T, C is dfsr and T is i2c_period in nano seconds.
Argh, my copy of AN2919 is old! Mine doesn't have any of this stuff in it.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
___
U-Boot mailing
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 17:26:29:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Looking a bit harder at the table I don't understand some entries, where
does
the entries with dfsr != 1 come from? They don't look like any table in
AN2919
They're all calculated. I entered the
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 18:13:03:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
This calculation does not seem to match AN2919.
When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today.
Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr!= 1)
Table
Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote on 10/09/2009 18:13:03:
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
This calculation does not seem to match AN2919.
When I wrote the code, AN2919 was much smaller than what you have today.
Suppose one used only Table 7(almost what we have if you exclude dfsr!= 1)
Table
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Joakim
Tjernlundjoakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
I wonder if this hides another problem too.
if the timeout hits, -1 is returned.
Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:
if (i2c_wait4bus() = 0
i2c_write_addr(dev, I2C_WRITE_BIT, 0) != 0
timur.t...@gmail.com wrote on 09/09/2009 16:24:15:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Joakim
Tjernlundjoakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
I wonder if this hides another problem too.
if the timeout hits, -1 is returned.
Then in i2c_read()/i2c_write() you have:
if (i2c_wait4bus()
26 matches
Mail list logo
