[asterisk-bugs] [DAHDI-linux 0015261]: [patch] SPI clock timing to SI3210/15 is not as per datasheet

[Asterisk Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=15261 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                alecdavis
Assigned To:                sruffell
====================================================================== 
Project:                    DAHDI-linux
Issue ID:                   15261
Category:                   wctdm
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   tweak
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     acknowledged
Target Version:             2.2.0
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2009-06-03 04:39 CDT
Last Modified:              2009-06-03 14:51 CDT
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    [patch] SPI clock timing to SI3210/15 is not as per
datasheet
Description: 
Referring to Silicon Labs Si3215 datasheet "Figure 7, SPI Timing Diagram",
and capturing SCS, SLCK, SDO, and SDI on a scope revealed some
discrepencies between data sheet and code.

The is true also of Zaptel Code.

The areas of concern are:
  1. Idle state of clock is shown in data sheet as logic 1, Both the
write_8bits and read_8bits have code to SCLK to 1 before CS goes low.
read_8bits has code to set SCLK to logic 0 after CS has gone high.

  2. In read_8bits the reading of SD0 should happen after rising edge of
clock.
Currently it's read immediatley after SCLK is driven low.

If the SCLK idle state of 0 was for safety reasons, what about SDO, it can
be either 0 or 1. I don't think this was the reason.

Would these fix the code in wctdm_voicedaa_check_hook
/* Try to track issues that plague slot one FXO's */

====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0105944) sruffell (administrator) - 2009-06-03 14:51
 https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=15261#c105944 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
alecdavis:  Short answer, no the Zaptel branches aren't being maintained. 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2009-06-03 14:51 sruffell       Note Added: 0105944                          
======================================================================