Re: [PATCH 3/5] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: add driver
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 23:38:19 +0100
- From: "M'boumba Cedric Madianga" <cedric.madianga@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: add driver
>> As, I2C rise/fall time have some impacts in I2C timings value, the
>> question is: it is very relevant to let customer control these
>> parameters ?
> Actually, you could specify a different rise time in DT if it's relevant for
> a specific design, this is why you have the following DT attributes :
> - i2c-scl-falling-time-ns
> - i2c-scl-internal-delay-ns
> - i2c-scl-rising-time-ns
> - i2c-sda-falling-time-ns
>> If the answer is NO, I agree with you, it is better to use your
>> formula and remove this property from DT.
>> If the answer is YES, I think we should keep ST tool.
> Note that the ST tool calculations are tied to the clock source frequency, so either
> you provide a table for all the possible clock source frequencies or calculate dynamically.
> Having a single parameter for a single frequency is, from my point of view, not acceptable.
> And, I don't think it's a military secret to have (at least) a simplified algorithm from ST...
> since you have very detailed explanations in the public manuals !
OK. I will do some trials with your algorithm and push it in the V2.
> OK, but I think the I2C and DT maintainers are also involved in these kind of decisions.
> They should also give their advice.
I already upstream an I2C driver with this approach: "i2c-stm32f4".
I don't think that Wolfram or Rob will change the philosophy for this driver.
Then, I also don't think that the machine code for F0/F1/L0/L4 will be
pushed in the mainline as it will be completely useless to port a
linux kernel for this kind of chip.