On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 09:08:18PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:10:20 -0800 > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 07:10:17PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 09:39:32 -0800 > > > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 04:43:24PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > > > I think we've reached a point where we can eventually consider the I3C > > > > > framework for inclusion in 4.20 (5.0?). A few more issues were reported > > > > > on v9 and fixed in v10. I can't guarantee that the implementation is > > > > > free of bugs but I still think it's worth merging it in v4.20: it's a > > > > > new subsystem, so we don't risk regressions, and the only way we can > > > > > detect other issues is by having other people experiment with this > > > > > implementation. > > > > > > > > > > The only remaining concern raised by Arnd is the fact that both hosts > > > > > and slaves share the same bus type and are differentiated thanks to > > > > > their device_type, which IMHO is fine since this is what other > > > > > subsystems do (plus I don't see other solutions to have both I3C > > > > > devices and I3C buses represented under /sys/bus/i3c/). > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's not the nicest, but it will work, we did it also for USB and > > > > greybus and it solves the issue. > > > > > > > > This all looks good to me, so I've queued it up. Let's see if > > > > linux-next has any problems with it. > > > > > > I recently asked Stephen to add the linux-i3c tree to linux-next, so > > > I'm expecting conflicts :-/. Sorry, I didn't know you were planning to > > > take these patches through your tree. > > > > > > BTW, I also fixed a couple of things when rebasing on top of 4.20-rc1: > > > > > > - KernelVersion in the sysfs ABI doc has been updated to 5.0 > > > > There is no 5.0 yet :) > > Actually I had a hard time choosing between 4.21 and 5.0, and then I > saw Linus' email announcing 4.20-rc1 ;-). But I can change it back to > 4.21 if you prefer. > > > > > > - Fixed i3c_master_getmxds_locked() (bug reported/fixed by Colin here > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1799850.html) > > > - Removed a blank line at the end of master-driver-api.rst > > One extra thing I didn't mention (and didn't fix yet) is the I3C > mailing list. I asked Dave Miller if he'd be okay to create the > linux-i3c ML on vger.kernel.org, and he suggested that we use the > linux-i2c ML instead which I know Wolfram is not fond of. I might > decide to just put linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as the ML to Cc for > I3C patches until we settle on something. > > > > > > > For the record, the i3c/next branch pulled by Stephen is available here > > > [1]. > > > > > > > Thanks for sticking with it, nice work! > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing it! Greg, Stephen, let me know if you want me to > > > reset i3c/next to v4.20-rc1 to avoid conflicts in linux-next. > > > > So do you want me to just drop these patches from my tree? If so, I > > can, but i have no problem sending these to Linus for the next -rc1 > > merge window through my tree if that is easier. > > > > It's up to you. > > I think that's easier for me and for you if I take them in the i3c tree > and then send a PR to Linus myself. This way I won't bother you if > fixes are needed or if I decide to apply patches adding support for > other I3C controllers (I see you commented on the Synopsys driver > already, and I might indeed decide to queue this patchset for this > release). > > Doing that also allows me to get everything in place since I'll anyway > have to send PRs to Linus at some point. > > Regards, > > Boris > > PS: If you're fine with me taking the I3C patches, I'll need your > Acked-by. Sure, feel free to do it all yourself, I do not object to that! :) Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
