[RFC PATCH i2c-next 1/2] dt-bindings: i2c: aspeed: Add 'idle-wait-timeout-ms' setting

Jae Hyun Yoo jae.hyun.yoo at linux.intel.com
Wed Sep 26 09:20:47 PDT 2018


On 9/25/2018 9:20 AM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> On 9/25/2018 1:27 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:15:46PM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>> Hi Wolfram,
>>>
>>> On 9/24/2018 2:58 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:02:54AM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/2018 2:45 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>>>>> +- idle-wait-timeout-ms    : bus idle waiting timeout in 
>>>>>> milliseconds when
>>>>>> +              multi-master is set, defaults to 100 ms when not
>>>>>> +              specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will change it to 'aspeed,idle-wait-timeout-ms' as it's a non standard
>>>>> property.
>>>>
>>>> No need. This binding is not a HW description, so not a DT property in
>>>> my book. I still don't understand: Your IP core in master mode does not
>>>> have a BUSY bit or similar which detects when a START was detected and
>>>> clears after a STOP?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, I'll keep this property as it is then.
>>
>> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't think this a property, at all.
>> It doesn't describe the hardware, it is more of a configuration thing,
>> or?
>>
> 
> You are right. It doesn't describe the hardware but it needs to be
> configurable because it very depends on the peer master's behavior.
> If peer master sends a long packet usually, it should have a long
> timeout value since a slave receiving operation takes long time,
> and it should be adjusted with an optimal value with taking some
> experiments to make it not too long. Any suggestion?
> 

Should I use timeout in struct i2c_adapter instead just like i2c-mpc
does?




More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list