On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:33:43 +0000 Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 17:15:20 > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:57:32 +0000 > > Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > -----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. > > > > Oh, my bad, I see what you mean now. This is definitely a bug and should > > have the Fixes tags. I mean, even if we don't care about dynamic > > address assignment, I3C drivers might care about the ->of_node that's > > attached to the device. > > I didn't consider a bug because in dt-bindings says to not use 'assigned > address' if SA = 0. The fact that we don't try to assign a predefined dynamic address when !SA is indeed not a bug, but failing to propagate the ->of_node info to the i3c_device is one. > Do you think there is a better way to solve it? Your patch is correct, I just proposed a few adjustments.
