[top-i2c,dv] Added chip level I2C Device TX_RX test#633
Open
KinzaQamar wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
Conversation
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
5 times, most recently
from
June 22, 2026 16:43
dafa77b to
c434d75
Compare
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
2 times, most recently
from
June 23, 2026 09:32
fbf55a9 to
13af90e
Compare
KinzaQamar
requested review from
elliotb-lowrisc,
engdoreis,
marnovandermaas,
martin-velay and
ziuziakowska
June 23, 2026 09:37
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
5 times, most recently
from
June 25, 2026 09:15
d5e3010 to
74cf3b0
Compare
KinzaQamar
commented
Jun 26, 2026
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
from
June 26, 2026 10:27
74cf3b0 to
0646a31
Compare
engdoreis
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2026
engdoreis
left a comment
engdoreis
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I left a suggestion, otherwise it LGTM.
| VOLATILE_WRITE(i2c->txdata, txdata); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| void i2c_clear_cmd_complete(i2c_t i2c) |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest making a function to clear interrupts that take the interrupt as argument like uart:
mocha/sw/device/lib/hal/uart.c
Line 36 in 3b3b9e2
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mean something like that:
void i2c_clear_intr_state(i2c_t i2c, uint32_t state)
{
VOLATILE_WRITE(i2c->intr_state, state);
}
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but 'state' would be an enum with the interrupts. It should also accept more then one interrupt per call.
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
2 times, most recently
from
June 28, 2026 14:01
3e897ea to
eb7d381
Compare
3 tasks
martin-velay
reviewed
Jul 8, 2026
| @@ -37,23 +69,42 @@ function int unsigned top_chip_dv_i2c_tx_rx_vseq::round_up_divide(int unsigned a | |||
| endfunction | |||
|
|
|||
| function void top_chip_dv_i2c_tx_rx_vseq::configure_agent_timing(); | |||
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think these changes also have an impact on top_chip_dv_i2c_host_tx_rx_vseq. Isn't it an issue?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think that host_tx_rx_test gets affected. I've took these calculations from i2c_base_vseq function get_timing_values(). They look sensible to reason.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, sorry. I think I didn't answer this question well. These parameters are used to add delays which should depend on the speed of the I2C bus and not on host / device part. So, whatever the speed is just calculate the timing parameter the same way
martin-velay
changed the title
martin-velay
changed the title
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
2 times, most recently
from
July 17, 2026 12:44
9c8cb36 to
eddbdd0
Compare
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
4 times, most recently
from
July 17, 2026 14:53
f4fb13a to
3a94487
Compare
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
from
July 17, 2026 14:57
3a94487 to
ca5122a
Compare
KinzaQamar
added a commit
to KinzaQamar/mocha
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2026
A reviewer on lowRISC#633 commented about inconsistency in the naming of tBUF timing parameter accross different places. That made me look at the name of the bus_free_time_cycles field in the i2c_timing_params_t struct and I realized that it is also inconsistent. Signed-off-by: Kinza Qamar <kqzaman@lowrisc.org>
KinzaQamar
added a commit
to KinzaQamar/mocha
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2026
A reviewer on lowRISC#633 commented about inconsistency in the naming of tBUF timing parameter accross different places. That made me look at the name of the bus_free_time_cycles field in the i2c_timing_params_t struct and I realized that it is also inconsistent. Signed-off-by: Kinza Qamar <kqzaman@lowrisc.org>
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
2 times, most recently
from
July 20, 2026 21:37
98dc37c to
f048803
Compare
…vice Signed-off-by: Kinza Qamar <kqzaman@lowrisc.org>
Signed-off-by: Kinza Qamar <kqzaman@lowrisc.org>
Signed-off-by: Kinza Qamar <kqzaman@lowrisc.org>
KinzaQamar
force-pushed
the
i2c_device_smoke
branch
from
July 20, 2026 21:40
f048803 to
62ae5e7
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Added a host Vseq and device SW. The host will initiate read / write transfer. The device SW waits for the transfers to finish and compare the data bytes in each transfer at the end