mds at paradyne.com
Tue Dec 10 23:46:10 CET 2002
(sorry, don't know how to make the dots over the o!),
thanks for the notes and the opportunity to make comments.
As I've already said, I like the 50/50 duty cycle, with
1 ns hold and (udelay - 1) setup. That's the way it should be.
One question - is clock low time == udelay at end of a
read, including end of i2c_inb and i2c_stop? it looks to me like
it's only Tmin + Tmin?
One other general comment - sdalo() and sdahi() could be deleted
and inlined into test_bus(), which is the only place they're used?
Other comments below.
Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
> > First, included gzipped patch against latest CVS, it's my current local
> > work I told I would not commit before release and round for comments.
> Some notes to comment on the changes in the patch..
> I have been reading the "Fast Mode" specs to test my setup, at some
> points the 1 us I use violates this.
Disagree. If you think about it, the max hold spec really only applies
when you are an i2c slave. When you are a master and driving the clock,
you can exceed the max hold time since you are essentially
"extending the clock low time" as described in the footnote.
If 1 us > 0.9 us spec is a problem, then we certainly have a
problem now with a hold time == udelay.
> For debug use, we need adapter name from i2c_adapter everywhere.
> Current debugging is useless, while the original was simply
> incomprehensible. Sorry about the misspelling.
Agreed that it wasn't very good in the past.
> Improved symmetry; outb/inb now both handle the acknowledge timeslot.
> Sendbytes/readbytes only loop over the buffer and test for failures.
> Pass i2c_msg->flags deeper down to support more i2c mangling.
> The i2c_adapter->retry now applies to complete message. Previously
> it would fail on any [NA] after the address [A].
> I am not 100% sure how auto-incrementing EEPs will tolerate it,
> if we fail in the middle of a page and then resend from the beginning.
We may want to think about this more. Or maybe do something different
on reads than on writes. We don't want to corrupt eeproms.
> A message may be sent correctly after ignored [NA], retry or timeout.
> The caller could check this in i2c_msg->err, if necessary.
OK. But the whole mechanism of saving and checking the error, etc. is somewhat elaborate,
not sure if useful or not. If you look at the smbus-layer calls (which in turn use
the "emulation layer" if the adapter is i2c-only), errors aren't returned at all.
Which isn't great but that's the way it is now. In fact we have a two-year-old ticket
(#517 http://www2.lm-sensors.nu/~lm78/readticket.cgi?ticket=517 )
asking for improvement. I don't have any answers, just wondering if anybody
has a "vision" (!) on error handling and whether the changes in i2c-algo-bit
fit that vision.
> Kyösti Mälkki
> kmalkki at cc.hut.fi
More information about the lm-sensors