| Message ID | 1487868446-5339-1-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
Hi Wolfram, Gently ping. Regards Andrzej On 23.02.2017 17:47, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > Instead of using cryptic loop direct calculation of timings > can be used. > > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com> > --- > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c | 40 ++++++++++++++-------------------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c > index cbd93ce..04127b8 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c > @@ -292,9 +292,9 @@ static int exynos5_i2c_set_timing(struct exynos5_i2c *i2c, int mode) > unsigned int t_sr_release; > unsigned int t_ftl_cycle; > unsigned int clkin = clk_get_rate(i2c->clk); > - unsigned int div, utemp0 = 0, utemp1 = 0, clk_cycle; > unsigned int op_clk = (mode == HSI2C_HIGH_SPD) ? > i2c->hs_clock : i2c->fs_clock; > + int div, clk_cycle, temp; > > /* > * In case of HSI2C controller in Exynos5 series > @@ -305,33 +305,21 @@ static int exynos5_i2c_set_timing(struct exynos5_i2c *i2c, int mode) > * FPCLK / FI2C = > * (CLK_DIV + 1) * (TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + 2) + 8 + FLT_CYCLE > * > - * utemp0 = (CLK_DIV + 1) * (TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + 2) > - * utemp1 = (TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + 2) > + * clk_cycle := TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H > + * temp := (CLK_DIV + 1) * (clk_cycle + 2) > + * > + * Constraints: 4 <= temp, 0 <= CLK_DIV < 256, 2 <= clk_cycle <= 510 > + * > */ > t_ftl_cycle = (readl(i2c->regs + HSI2C_CONF) >> 16) & 0x7; > - utemp0 = (clkin / op_clk) - 8; > - > - if (i2c->variant->hw == HSI2C_EXYNOS7) > - utemp0 -= t_ftl_cycle; > - else > - utemp0 -= 2 * t_ftl_cycle; > - > - /* CLK_DIV max is 256 */ > - for (div = 0; div < 256; div++) { > - utemp1 = utemp0 / (div + 1); > - > - /* > - * SCL_L and SCL_H each has max value of 255 > - * Hence, For the clk_cycle to the have right value > - * utemp1 has to be less then 512 and more than 4. > - */ > - if ((utemp1 < 512) && (utemp1 > 4)) { > - clk_cycle = utemp1 - 2; > - break; > - } else if (div == 255) { > - dev_warn(i2c->dev, "Failed to calculate divisor"); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > + temp = clkin / op_clk - 8 - t_ftl_cycle; > + if (i2c->variant->hw != HSI2C_EXYNOS7) > + temp -= t_ftl_cycle; > + div = temp / 512; > + clk_cycle = temp / (div + 1) - 2; > + if (temp < 4 || div >= 256 || clk_cycle < 2) { > + dev_warn(i2c->dev, "Failed to calculate divisor"); > + return -EINVAL; > } > > t_scl_l = clk_cycle / 2; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Wolfram, Ping, 7 weeks passed. Regards Andrzej On 23.02.2017 17:47, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > Instead of using cryptic loop direct calculation of timings > can be used. > > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com> > --- > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c | 40 ++++++++++++++-------------------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c > index cbd93ce..04127b8 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c > @@ -292,9 +292,9 @@ static int exynos5_i2c_set_timing(struct exynos5_i2c *i2c, int mode) > unsigned int t_sr_release; > unsigned int t_ftl_cycle; > unsigned int clkin = clk_get_rate(i2c->clk); > - unsigned int div, utemp0 = 0, utemp1 = 0, clk_cycle; > unsigned int op_clk = (mode == HSI2C_HIGH_SPD) ? > i2c->hs_clock : i2c->fs_clock; > + int div, clk_cycle, temp; > > /* > * In case of HSI2C controller in Exynos5 series > @@ -305,33 +305,21 @@ static int exynos5_i2c_set_timing(struct exynos5_i2c *i2c, int mode) > * FPCLK / FI2C = > * (CLK_DIV + 1) * (TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + 2) + 8 + FLT_CYCLE > * > - * utemp0 = (CLK_DIV + 1) * (TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + 2) > - * utemp1 = (TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + 2) > + * clk_cycle := TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H > + * temp := (CLK_DIV + 1) * (clk_cycle + 2) > + * > + * Constraints: 4 <= temp, 0 <= CLK_DIV < 256, 2 <= clk_cycle <= 510 > + * > */ > t_ftl_cycle = (readl(i2c->regs + HSI2C_CONF) >> 16) & 0x7; > - utemp0 = (clkin / op_clk) - 8; > - > - if (i2c->variant->hw == HSI2C_EXYNOS7) > - utemp0 -= t_ftl_cycle; > - else > - utemp0 -= 2 * t_ftl_cycle; > - > - /* CLK_DIV max is 256 */ > - for (div = 0; div < 256; div++) { > - utemp1 = utemp0 / (div + 1); > - > - /* > - * SCL_L and SCL_H each has max value of 255 > - * Hence, For the clk_cycle to the have right value > - * utemp1 has to be less then 512 and more than 4. > - */ > - if ((utemp1 < 512) && (utemp1 > 4)) { > - clk_cycle = utemp1 - 2; > - break; > - } else if (div == 255) { > - dev_warn(i2c->dev, "Failed to calculate divisor"); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > + temp = clkin / op_clk - 8 - t_ftl_cycle; > + if (i2c->variant->hw != HSI2C_EXYNOS7) > + temp -= t_ftl_cycle; > + div = temp / 512; > + clk_cycle = temp / (div + 1) - 2; > + if (temp < 4 || div >= 256 || clk_cycle < 2) { > + dev_warn(i2c->dev, "Failed to calculate divisor"); > + return -EINVAL; > } > > t_scl_l = clk_cycle / 2; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:24:16AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > Ping, 7 weeks passed. Known issue, there are not enough reviewers for I2C for a timely response. I was hoping for some tags from other users of this hardware, but that didn't happen. And I don't know this hardware, at all. So, I'll apply your patches early in the next cycle, and we will see what happens once they are in -next. Best would be if you could find other people to donate tags. Thanks, Wolfram
Hello Wolfram, On 04/19/2017 03:17 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:24:16AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> Hi Wolfram, >> >> Ping, 7 weeks passed. > > Known issue, there are not enough reviewers for I2C for a timely > response. I was hoping for some tags from other users of this hardware, > but that didn't happen. And I don't know this hardware, at all. So, I'll > apply your patches early in the next cycle, and we will see what happens > once they are in -next. Best would be if you could find other people to > donate tags. > I got a try to this patch on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook and all the I2C devices are working properly, so: Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> > Thanks, > > Wolfram > Best regards,
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:36:39PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Wolfram, > > On 04/19/2017 03:17 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:24:16AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > >> Hi Wolfram, > >> > >> Ping, 7 weeks passed. > > > > Known issue, there are not enough reviewers for I2C for a timely > > response. I was hoping for some tags from other users of this hardware, > > but that didn't happen. And I don't know this hardware, at all. So, I'll > > apply your patches early in the next cycle, and we will see what happens > > once they are in -next. Best would be if you could find other people to > > donate tags. > > > > I got a try to this patch on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook and all > the I2C devices are working properly, so: > > Tested-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com> Cool, can you test his other patches as well? http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?submitter=47122
Hi Andrzej, > > Ping, 7 weeks passed. > > Known issue, there are not enough reviewers for I2C for a timely > response. I was hoping for some tags from other users of this hardware, > but that didn't happen. And I don't know this hardware, at all. So, I'll > apply your patches early in the next cycle, and we will see what happens > once they are in -next. Best would be if you could find other people to > donate tags. I'm sorry, I forgot to reply to this patch, I actually reviewed and tested it among all your i2c patches (that's why I asked you on IRC to add me in Cc to all your i2c patches). So you can add also my Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@samsung.com> Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> I'm sorry, I forgot to reply to this patch, I actually reviewed > and tested it among all your i2c patches You mean you reviewed all his i2c patches? If so, could you add the tag per patch. This way, patchwork will automatically collect them for me and display the tag count in the list of patches.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 05:47:26PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > Instead of using cryptic loop direct calculation of timings > can be used. > > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com> Applied to for-next, thanks!
Hi Wolfram, > > I'm sorry, I forgot to reply to this patch, I actually reviewed > > and tested it among all your i2c patches > > You mean you reviewed all his i2c patches? If so, could you add the tag > per patch. This way, patchwork will automatically collect them for me > and display the tag count in the list of patches. yes, I reviewed, tested and used all the patches that Andrzej has recently sent to the i2c-exynos driver. For all of them I replied with my Reviewed-by, apparently I forgot to send the reply to this one. Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c index cbd93ce..04127b8 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c @@ -292,9 +292,9 @@ static int exynos5_i2c_set_timing(struct exynos5_i2c *i2c, int mode) unsigned int t_sr_release; unsigned int t_ftl_cycle; unsigned int clkin = clk_get_rate(i2c->clk); - unsigned int div, utemp0 = 0, utemp1 = 0, clk_cycle; unsigned int op_clk = (mode == HSI2C_HIGH_SPD) ? i2c->hs_clock : i2c->fs_clock; + int div, clk_cycle, temp; /* * In case of HSI2C controller in Exynos5 series @@ -305,33 +305,21 @@ static int exynos5_i2c_set_timing(struct exynos5_i2c *i2c, int mode) * FPCLK / FI2C = * (CLK_DIV + 1) * (TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + 2) + 8 + FLT_CYCLE * - * utemp0 = (CLK_DIV + 1) * (TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + 2) - * utemp1 = (TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + 2) + * clk_cycle := TSCLK_L + TSCLK_H + * temp := (CLK_DIV + 1) * (clk_cycle + 2) + * + * Constraints: 4 <= temp, 0 <= CLK_DIV < 256, 2 <= clk_cycle <= 510 + * */ t_ftl_cycle = (readl(i2c->regs + HSI2C_CONF) >> 16) & 0x7; - utemp0 = (clkin / op_clk) - 8; - - if (i2c->variant->hw == HSI2C_EXYNOS7) - utemp0 -= t_ftl_cycle; - else - utemp0 -= 2 * t_ftl_cycle; - - /* CLK_DIV max is 256 */ - for (div = 0; div < 256; div++) { - utemp1 = utemp0 / (div + 1); - - /* - * SCL_L and SCL_H each has max value of 255 - * Hence, For the clk_cycle to the have right value - * utemp1 has to be less then 512 and more than 4. - */ - if ((utemp1 < 512) && (utemp1 > 4)) { - clk_cycle = utemp1 - 2; - break; - } else if (div == 255) { - dev_warn(i2c->dev, "Failed to calculate divisor"); - return -EINVAL; - } + temp = clkin / op_clk - 8 - t_ftl_cycle; + if (i2c->variant->hw != HSI2C_EXYNOS7) + temp -= t_ftl_cycle; + div = temp / 512; + clk_cycle = temp / (div + 1) - 2; + if (temp < 4 || div >= 256 || clk_cycle < 2) { + dev_warn(i2c->dev, "Failed to calculate divisor"); + return -EINVAL; } t_scl_l = clk_cycle / 2;
Instead of using cryptic loop direct calculation of timings can be used. Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com> --- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c | 40 ++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)