[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] Add strong pullup emulation to w1-gpio master driver.
11/12/2013 12:01 PM, David Fries:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:07:14AM +0400, Evgeny Boger wrote:
>> +David Fries <>
>> Hi David,
>> Would you please comment on this?
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:36:54PM +0400, Evgeny Boger wrote:
>> Strong pullup is emulated by driving pin logic high after write
>> command when
>> using tri-state push-pull GPIO.
> Not knowing the hardware involved, is driving the logic high a
> stronger pullup than the normal weak pullup input high? Meaning it
> was already being left high, just with a lessor pullup and this will
> provide a stronger one?

Sure. The push-pull GPIO on common SoC's are usually able to provide up
to 10 mA of current.

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 03:09:36AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>>> + msleep(pdata->pullup_duration);
>> This doesn't look like a good idea - kernel will sleep for that long
>> not doing usual w1 job
> Not speaking for Evgeny Boger, but I'm thinking that's intended here.
> The original strong pullup code change 6a158c0de791a81 I wrote will
> msleep in w1_post_write when a hardware pullup isn't available, while
> the hardware ds2490 ds9490r_set_pullup sleeps for the strong pullup
> using spu_sleep variable. The user requests a strong pullup for a
> given time and any other operations on the bus will interrupt the
> strong pullup, so locking any other operations sounds desired.
>> 11/12/2013 05:03 AM, Evgeniy Polyakov:
>>> Hi
>>> 12.11.2013, 03:32, "Evgeny Boger" <>:
>>>>> Why did you drop this check? It has nothing with w1-gpio driver
>>>> This check prevents master from implementing "set_pullup" provided it does support only "write_bit" method.
>>>> The comment above states that
>>>>> w1_io.c would need to support calling set_pullup before - * the last write_bit operation of a w1_write_8 which it currently - * doesn't.
>>>> which is kind of strange, since it describes what w1_io.c actually does support.
>>>> w1_write_8 (w1_io.c:154,
>>>>> for (i = 0; i < 8; ++i) {
>>>>> if (i == 7)
>>>>> w1_pre_write(dev);
>>>>> w1_touch_bit(dev, (byte >> i) & 0x1);
>>>>> }
>>>> It seems like w1_write_8() calls w1_pre_write(), which in turn calls set_pullup() just before the last write_bit().
> I'm not seeing any harm in removing this check and clear
> master->set_pullup. It doesn't seem correct for this code to override
> a master that claims to provide something of a stronger pullup. It's
> been about five years since I wrote that code, I think it was just to
> protect against a stupid master.
> With this patch the last w1_write_bit will go logic 1, for 64 or 10 us
> before returning, then w1_gpio_set_pullup is called to enable the
> strong pullup. What I wouldn't know is if in that last bit if the
> logic 1 would be a go up to the strong pullup, or if it would finish
> that time slot with a weak pullup and then go to a strong pullup. I
> would have to dig into the timing specifications much more than I have
> time to right now to say what is supposed to happen. The 18b20
> datasheet lists, "The DQ line must be switched over to the strong
> pullup within 10 us maximum after issuing any protocol that involves
> copying the E2 memory or initiates temperature conversions." It isn't
> clear where that 10 us starts from. You might try to dig around and
> see if that last bit written should go to weak pullup 1 or strong
> pullup 1. It would take more changes if it should go right to a
> strong pullup.

I wasn't able to find any support for the latter statement.
It looks like the strong pull-up should be enabled *after* the last bit
has been sent
so no need to set strong pull-up there.

However setting strong pullup for last bit makes sense just to ensure we
fit to 10us time window.

On the other hand, I didn't experienced any problems with the proposed

>>>> I'm not sure why this check was there in the first place.
>>> Please add author of those lines to clarify things.
>>> This doesn't look obvious to me


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-13 02:21    [W:0.094 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site