-----Original Message----- From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 4:25 PM To: Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-i3c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; Joao.Pinto@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] i3c: master: Check if devices have i3c_dev_boardinfo on i3c_master_add_i3c_dev_locked() On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:07:08 +0000 Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 15:39:41 > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:39:18 +0200 > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:00:44 +0000 > > > Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Boris, > > > > > > > > From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:44:57 > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:19:33 +0200 > > > > > Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The I3C devices described in DT might not be attached to the master which > > > > > > doesn't allow to assign a specific dynamic address. > > > > > > > > > > I remember testing this when developing the framework, so, unless > > > > > another patch regressed it, it should already work. I suspect patch 1 > > > > > is actually the regressing this use case. > > > > > > > > For today it doesn't address the case where the device is described with > > > > static address = 0, which isn't attached to the controller. > > > > > > Hm, I'm pretty sure I had designed the code to support that case (see > > > [1]). It might be buggy, but nothing we can't fix I guess. > > > > > > > [1]https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__elixir.bootlin.com_linux_v5.3-2Drc6_source_drivers_i3c_master.c-23L1898&d=DwICAg&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=qVuU64u9x77Y0Kd0PhDK_lpxFgg6PK9PateHwjb_DY0&m=IXS1ygIgEo5vwajk0iwd5aBDVBzRnVTjO3cg4iBmGNc&s=HC-AcYm-AZPrUBoALioej_BDnqOtJHltr39Z2yPkuU4&e= > > That is only valid if you have olddev which will only exist if static > address != 0. Hm, if you revert patch 1 (and assuming the device is properly defined in the DT), you should have olddev != NULL when reaching that point. If that's not the case there's a bug somewhere that should be fixed. No, because the device is not attached.
