On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 22:17 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 08:03:14PM +0800, Qii Wang wrote:

quoted

I can't see the relationship between "i2c-scl-falling-time-ns" and clock
stretching, is there a parameter related to clock stretching?

( you wrote "i2c-scl-falling-time-ns" above, didn't you mean
"i2c-scl-internal-delay-ns" instead? )

I am sorry, I have confused your comment with lkjoon's comment in the
last mail. what I actually want to say is "i2c-scl-internal-delay-ns".

Not yet, and I wonder if there can be one. In I2C (not SMBus), devices
are allowed to stretch the clock as long as they want, so what should be
specified here?

I suggesteed "internal-delay" because AFAIU your hardware needs this
delay to be able to cope with clock stretching.

If there is not a maximum value for clock stretching,
"i2c-scl-internal-delay-ns" should be a good choice for our hardware,
although it maybe not for clock stretching.

quoted

If you think both of them will affect the ac-timing of SCL, at this
point, "i2c-scl-falling-time-ns" maybe a good choice.

Do you mean "i2c-scl-falling-time-ns" or "i2c-scl-internal-delay-ns"?

"i2c-scl-internal-delay-ns" is better.

Thanks for your review.
Qii


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel