lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 01/10] i3c: Add core I3C infrastructure
    Hi Przemek,

    On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:55:20 +0000
    Przemyslaw Gaj <pgaj@cadence.com> wrote:

    > Hi Vitor,
    >
    > I have already implemented Mastership request/handover but we are waiting for Boris’s patch to be accepted and merged. Anyway, my comments below.
    >
    > On 8/28/18, 2:02 PM, "Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote:
    >
    > EXTERNAL MAIL
    >
    >
    > Hi Vitor,
    >
    > On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:50:12 +0100
    > vitor <Vitor.Soares@synopsys.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Hi Boris,
    > >
    > > The DT Bindings say "The node describing an I3C bus should be named
    > > i3c-master.". Do you have a field for secondary master?
    >
    > I think we don’t need separate field for secondary master. Main and secondary masters
    > support similar functionalities. It’s enough to have this state internally and do mastership it it's needed.
    >
    > >
    > > On 24-08-2018 19:16, Boris Brezillon wrote:
    > > > Well, before even considering supporting secondary master registration,
    > > > we need to handle mastership handover. As for the DAA operation, it's
    > > > likely to be host specific, so we'll have to add a new hook to the
    > > > i3c_master_controller_ops struct.
    > > Do you mean when master try to delegate the bus ownership through
    > > GETACCMST? or to get the bus ownership with IBI-MR?
    >
    > I think we need to support both.
    >
    > I agree.
    >
    > >
    > > I think that could be useful to pass the ibi type on request_ibi(),
    > > there is some case where the master doesn't support IBI-MR.
    >
    > Actually, I was planning on making it completely separate from
    > regular slave IBIs. That is, the master controller driver would demux
    > the slave, MR and Hot Join IBIs, and if there's an MR request, queue a
    > mastership handover work to the workqueue (pretty much what we do for
    > Hot-Join already). Mastership handover is anyway likely to be IP
    > specific, so I don't think there's a need to make it look like a
    > regular IBI.
    >
    > I think it's better to have separate function to do mastership request.
    >
    > Regarding whether IBI-MR support should be exposed to the I3C framework
    > or not depends on how much will be automated on the framework side. I
    > don't the answer yet, but that's probably something will figure out
    > along the road.
    >
    > My current implementation is: when request_mastership field
    > of i3c_master_controller_ops structure is set, master driver supports mastership requests.
    > That's how I check if this is supported or not.

    Can you maybe host your code on a public repo (I can push it for you if
    needed) so that you and Vitor can start discussing implementation
    details.

    Thanks,

    Boris

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-08-28 15:03    [W:4.258 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site