mirror of
https://github.com/brain-hackers/u-boot-brain
synced 2024-08-19 00:18:51 +09:00
![Simon Glass](/assets/img/avatar_default.png)
While I2C supports multi-master buses this is difficult to get right. The implementation on the master side in software is quite complex. Clock-stretching and the arbitrary time that an I2C transaction can take make it difficult to share the bus fairly in the face of high traffic. When one or more masters can be reset independently part-way through a transaction it is hard to know the state of the bus. This driver provides a scheme based on two 'claim' GPIOs, one driven by the AP (Application Processor, meaning the main CPU) and one driven by the EC (Embedded Controller, a small CPU aimed at handling system tasks). With these they can communicate and reliably share the bus. This scheme has minimal overhead and involves very little code. It is used on snow to permit the EC and the AP to share access to the main system PMIC and battery. The scheme can survive reboots by either side without difficulty. This scheme has been tested in the field with millions of devices. Since U-Boot runs on the AP, the terminology used is 'our' claim GPIO, meaning the AP's, and 'their' claim GPIO, meaning the EC's. This terminology is used by the device tree bindings in Linux also. Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
61 lines
2.6 KiB
Plaintext
61 lines
2.6 KiB
Plaintext
I2C Bus Arbitration
|
|
===================
|
|
|
|
While I2C supports multi-master buses this is difficult to get right.
|
|
The implementation on the master side in software is quite complex.
|
|
Clock-stretching and the arbitrary time that an I2C transaction can take
|
|
make it difficult to share the bus fairly in the face of high traffic.
|
|
When one or more masters can be reset independently part-way through a
|
|
transaction it is hard to know the state of the bus.
|
|
|
|
U-Boot provides a scheme based on two 'claim' GPIOs, one driven by the
|
|
AP (Application Processor, meaning the main CPU) and one driven by the EC
|
|
(Embedded Controller, a small CPU aimed at handling system tasks). With
|
|
these they can communicate and reliably share the bus. This scheme has
|
|
minimal overhead and involves very little code. The scheme can survive
|
|
reboots by either side without difficulty.
|
|
|
|
Since U-Boot runs on the AP, the terminology used is 'our' claim GPIO,
|
|
meaning the AP's, and 'their' claim GPIO, meaning the EC's. This terminology
|
|
is used by the device tree bindings in Linux also.
|
|
|
|
The driver is implemented as an I2C mux, as it is in Linux. See
|
|
i2c-arb-gpio-challenge for the implementation.
|
|
|
|
GPIO lines are shared between the AP and EC to manage the bus. The AP and EC
|
|
each have a 'bus claim' line, which is an output that the other can see.
|
|
|
|
- AP_CLAIM: output from AP, signalling to the EC that the AP wants the bus
|
|
- EC_CLAIM: output from EC, signalling to the AP that the EC wants the bus
|
|
|
|
The basic algorithm is to assert your line when you want the bus, then make
|
|
sure that the other side doesn't want it also. A detailed explanation is best
|
|
done with an example.
|
|
|
|
Let's say the AP wants to claim the bus. It:
|
|
|
|
1. Asserts AP_CLAIM
|
|
2. Waits a little bit for the other side to notice (slew time)
|
|
3. Checks EC_CLAIM. If this is not asserted, then the AP has the bus, and we
|
|
are done
|
|
4. Otherwise, wait for a few milliseconds (retry time) and see if EC_CLAIM is
|
|
released
|
|
5. If not, back off, release the claim and wait for a few more milliseconds
|
|
(retry time again)
|
|
6. Go back to 1 if things don't look wedged (wait time has expired)
|
|
7. Panic. The other side is hung with the CLAIM line set.
|
|
|
|
The same algorithm applies on the EC.
|
|
|
|
To release the bus, just de-assert the claim line.
|
|
|
|
Typical delays are:
|
|
- slew time 10 us
|
|
- retry time 3 ms
|
|
- wait time - 50ms
|
|
|
|
In general the traffic is fairly light, and in particular the EC wants access
|
|
to the bus quite rarely (maybe every 10s or 30s to check the battery). This
|
|
scheme works very nicely with very low contention. There is only a 10 us
|
|
wait for access to the bus assuming that the other side isn't using it.
|