[U-Boot] I2C: OMAP: spurious i2c probe addresses

[Nick Thompson]

On 26/05/11 08:03, Michael Jones wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 05:38 PM, Michael Jones wrote:
>> While running v2011.06-rc1, I noticed some new behavior on my OMAP3 i2c
>> bus.  I tracked it to commit 0e57968a215d1b, "I2C: OMAP: detect more
>> devices when probing an i2c bus".  It detects more devices indeed, such
>> as some that don't even exist. Even better than that, it detects
>> different devices every time.  It looks like just false positives, the
>> existent devices seem to always be found among the ghost devices.
>>
>> Here's the behavior I see:
>> --------------------------
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 05 18 30 49 50 51 5E 7A
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 02 06 0B 18 1D 24 25 30 35 50 51 57 5D 6F 7C
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 18 2E 30 33 35 50 51 62 6F
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 18 1B 1F 2D 30 46 50 51 5C 5D
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 0A 18 21 26 2B 30 32 50 51 60 66 69 6D 79
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 08 09 18 1B 30 50 51 5E 6C
>>
>>
>> Here's what it looks like after reverting the commit:
>> ------------------------------------------
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 18 30 50 51
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 18 30 50 51
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 18 30 50 51
>> # i2c probe
>> Valid chip addresses: 18 30 50 51
>>
>>
>> -Michael
> 
> Sorry- relevant point here: I have a device with a 2-byte subaddress,
> which I suspect is the culprit here.  As Nick mentioned in his commit
> message, such devices are unsupported by the current OMAP i2c driver.
> I'm in the process of adding support for 2-byte subaddresses to the
> driver.  In light of the above, I now realize that such changes will
> probably have to involve i2c_probe() as well.
> 
> -Michael

Hi Michael,

What do you mean by sub-address? The address within the device or an
extended chip address?

The change I made aborts the write after sending the 7 bit chip
address and 1 write bit, so a device's internal address shouldn't be
relevant.

Extended chip addressing devices would not be supported as it stands.
I can imagine NACK may not be occur for a device waiting for more
chip address bits, though I would have thought it wouldn't drive the bus
low until the full address is received.

Can you tell us what device this is? Even better a link to the data
sheet.

Does your bus have only one master (the OMAP)? There could be an issue
if bus arbitration failures occur.

I guess your bus pull-ups are strong enough to assert the NAK...?
If not, you probably you would have seen other issues before now.

Nick.