Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> Dan Henry <usenet@danlhenry.com> wrote:
> 
>>Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I2C has a mode where you can stretch the clock to accomodate slower
>>>devices. IIRC the slave holds off the bus by stretching the low period of
>>>SCL. There is a timeout feature to prevent hanging up the bus indefinitely.
> 
> 
>>Several non-exhaustive examinations (i.e. skims) of Philips' I2C spec
>>(version 2.0 December 1998) does not indicate what that timeout is.
>>Where and how is the timeout quantified?
> 
> 
> Standard I2C has no timeout, SMB has.
Right. My bad. I use the SMBus on a SiLabs micro and that's what I was 
thinking of. The data sheet claims that SMB is I2C 'compatible'. Iwonder 
if there is a definitive list of what the differences are?

Bob

Dan Henry <usenet@danlhenry.com> wrote:
> Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >I2C has a mode where you can stretch the clock to accomodate slower
> >devices. IIRC the slave holds off the bus by stretching the low period of
> >SCL. There is a timeout feature to prevent hanging up the bus indefinitely.

> Several non-exhaustive examinations (i.e. skims) of Philips' I2C spec
> (version 2.0 December 1998) does not indicate what that timeout is.
> Where and how is the timeout quantified?

Standard I2C has no timeout, SMB has.
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I2C has a mode where you can stretch the clock to accomodate slower
>devices. IIRC the slave holds off the bus by stretching the low period of
>SCL. There is a timeout feature to prevent hanging up the bus indefinitely.

Several non-exhaustive examinations (i.e. skims) of Philips' I2C spec
(version 2.0 December 1998) does not indicate what that timeout is.
Where and how is the timeout quantified?

--
Dan Henry

Patrick wrote:

> Just FYI:
> 
> The MSP430F16x's I2c hardware controller turned out to be buggy (some 
> other people said they had problems as well). I replaced the rx and tx 
> routines on the master side with software-controlled bit banging, and 
> suddenly the problem was gone. I'm still using the I2c HW module on the 
> slave side, but that seems to be OK.

Interesting, (and not the first time).
I remember years ago getting customers to change from the 87C552
i2c HW to SW masters, and getting smaller code and more reliable
operation...

Just FYI:

The MSP430F16x's I2c hardware controller turned out to be buggy (some 
other people said they had problems as well). I replaced the rx and tx 
routines on the master side with software-controlled bit banging, and 
suddenly the problem was gone. I'm still using the I2c HW module on the 
slave side, but that seems to be OK.

Regards,
Patrick

Patrick wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Jim Granville wrote:
> 
>> Any idea of the failure rate itself, in terms of completed i2c bus 
>> packets ?
> 
> 
> Not really. It can happen after a few packets, or after 1000 packets.
> 
>> Can you try send of multiple STOP pulses ? - because i2c is a state 
>> engine system, it is possible for slaves to not terminate/exit correctly
>> ( which is why the last byte in a series is supposed to not have ACK )
>> If that occurs, the start arrives on a slave system that is not fully 
>> transaction-complete; of course, in an ideal designed HW, the Start
>> should over-ride all others, but few devices are ideal.
> 
> 
> That's interesting. But it still puzzles me that the slave works again 
> when I reset the _master_. I wonder how the slave can notice that, given 
> that the bus is idle and doesn't change its state when I restart the 
> master.
> 
>> You will see a number of the newer i2c RTC devices now come with a 
>> RESET pin, and that will have been added because system reliability 
>> demanded it....
> 
> 
> interesting again...
> 
>> The time delay for recovery you see, might be an internal i2c watchdog ?
> 
> 
> I don't think so. When I comment out the flash writing stuff, the slave 
> is ready immediately after it receives the data. (And then my problem 
> doesn't occur). It looks like the delay that has to be made by the 
> master is directly correlated to the amount of time needed by the slave 
> to complete its write operation. Like the system couldn't _always_ 
> handle the situation that the slave doesn't respond immediately.
> 
> I will try the multiple STOP thing anyway.
> 

Is there a hardware clock clamp in the slave?

It should clamp the clock as soon as the slave is not
able to catch the current bit.

-- 

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

Patrick wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Jim Granville wrote:
> 
>> Any idea of the failure rate itself, in terms of completed i2c bus 
>> packets ?
> 
> 
> Not really. It can happen after a few packets, or after 1000 packets.
> 
>> Can you try send of multiple STOP pulses ? - because i2c is a state 
>> engine system, it is possible for slaves to not terminate/exit correctly
>> ( which is why the last byte in a series is supposed to not have ACK )
>> If that occurs, the start arrives on a slave system that is not fully 
>> transaction-complete; of course, in an ideal designed HW, the Start
>> should over-ride all others, but few devices are ideal.
> 
> 
> That's interesting. But it still puzzles me that the slave works again 
> when I reset the _master_. I wonder how the slave can notice that, given 
> that the bus is idle and doesn't change its state when I restart the 
> master.
> 
>> You will see a number of the newer i2c RTC devices now come with a 
>> RESET pin, and that will have been added because system reliability 
>> demanded it....
> 
> 
> interesting again...
> 
>> The time delay for recovery you see, might be an internal i2c watchdog ?
> 
> 
> I don't think so. When I comment out the flash writing stuff, the slave 
> is ready immediately after it receives the data. (And then my problem 
> doesn't occur). It looks like the delay that has to be made by the 
> master is directly correlated to the amount of time needed by the slave 
> to complete its write operation. Like the system couldn't _always_ 
> handle the situation that the slave doesn't respond immediately.
> 
> I will try the multiple STOP thing anyway.

  This new info is sounding more like a i2c state phase problem - ie if 
the slave is caught in various levels of too busy, the slave i2c is
expected to wait somewhere along the sequence, and sometimes you
hit the jackpot.....
  You do send a stop, after each failed start.address to the slave ?
Can you buffer the info, so the write operation does not interact with
the i2c timing ?

-jg

Hi,

Jim Granville wrote:
> Any idea of the failure rate itself, in terms of completed i2c bus 
> packets ?

Not really. It can happen after a few packets, or after 1000 packets.

> Can you try send of multiple STOP pulses ? - because i2c is a state 
> engine system, it is possible for slaves to not terminate/exit correctly
> ( which is why the last byte in a series is supposed to not have ACK )
> If that occurs, the start arrives on a slave system that is not fully 
> transaction-complete; of course, in an ideal designed HW, the Start
> should over-ride all others, but few devices are ideal.

That's interesting. But it still puzzles me that the slave works again 
when I reset the _master_. I wonder how the slave can notice that, given 
that the bus is idle and doesn't change its state when I restart the master.

> You will see a number of the newer i2c RTC devices now come with a 
> RESET pin, and that will have been added because system reliability 
> demanded it....

interesting again...

> The time delay for recovery you see, might be an internal i2c watchdog ?

I don't think so. When I comment out the flash writing stuff, the slave 
is ready immediately after it receives the data. (And then my problem 
doesn't occur). It looks like the delay that has to be made by the 
master is directly correlated to the amount of time needed by the slave 
to complete its write operation. Like the system couldn't _always_ 
handle the situation that the slave doesn't respond immediately.

I will try the multiple STOP thing anyway.

Thanks,
Patrick

Patrick wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm developing an I2C slave device based on a MSP430F169.
> Another 'F169 is the master (for testing) and every now and then, the
> communication breaks down.
> 
> The master's application is derived from TI app note slaa208
> "Interfacing an EEPROM to the MSP430 I2C Module".
> 
> I'm implementing a I2C bootloader for the slave device, and the
> control flow goes like this:
> 
> 1a) Master does "ack-polling" to see if the slave is there.
> (It puts a start-condition on the bus, followed by the slave address,
> followed by a stop condition, until it sees ACK from the slave)
> 1b) Slave I2C module HW sees its address byte and sends ACK
> 
> 2a) Master reads slave's status register.
> 2b) Slave writes its status
> Master repeats until the register reads "OK, Slave ready"
> 
> 3a) Master sends the control code for "write flash block"
> 3b) Slave enters "write flash block" routine
> 
> 4a) Master sends a single line of the HEX file
> 4b) Slave writes data to flash and leaves "write flash block" routine
> 
> 5a) Master jumps to 1) if it's not finished
> 
> My problem is that the ack-polling sometimes doesn't work. It is not
> exactly reproducible, and it seems to depend on things like room
> temperature, air moisture, moon phase, etc.
> And this error doesn't happen if the master waits a LOOONG time
> (almost 100 ms) between steps 5) and 1). (But this is not desirable at
> all, and I want to know the real reason for this problem).
> 
> When the ack-polling fails, the master sends the correct sequence on
> the bus, but the slave doesn't ACK, and this goes on forever.
> Ok, it must be the slave, I thought. But when I reset the _master_,
> then everything is OK again.
> 
> Does this sound familiar to anyone? I don't really know how to further
> debug this stuff. I have normal pullups (5K ohms) and if there isn't
> lots of traffic, then everything's OK.
> 
> Do I have to resort to s/w bit banging? The 'F169 errata sheet doesn't
> mention any bugs in the I2C module, IIRC.
> 
> Any ideas/suggestions are very welcome.

  Any idea of the failure rate itself, in terms of completed i2c bus 
packets ?
  Sounds like this is a rare failure ( <0.1%), which rather rules out
fundamental HW flaws.
  Can you try send of multiple STOP pulses ? - because i2c is a state 
engine system, it is possible for slaves to not terminate/exit correctly
( which is why the last byte in a series is supposed to not have ACK )
If that occurs, the start arrives on a slave system that is not fully 
transaction-complete; of course, in an ideal designed HW, the Start
should over-ride all others, but few devices are ideal.
   You will see a number of the newer i2c RTC devices now come with a 
RESET pin, and that will have been added because system reliability 
demanded it....
  The time delay for recovery you see, might be an internal i2c watchdog ?

-jg

Hi,

Bob Stephens wrote:
> IIRC the slave holds off the bus by stretching the low period of
> SCL.

Yes, IIRC, thats the case when the slave has seen its address but user 
code cannot receive / transmit immediately. Then the on-chip I2C module 
pulls SCL low until user code reads / writes the data register.

But my problem is that the slave doesn't even ACK its address.

> There is a timeout feature to prevent hanging up the bus indefinitely.

My bus is idle (both SDA and SCL are high).

But thanks anyway,
Patrick