Re: [PATCH v10 5/8] dt-bindings: media: add TI DS90UB960 FPD-Link III Deserializer

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 18/04/2023 16:06, Wolfram Sang wrote:

+  i2c-alias-pool:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint16-array
+    description:
+      I2C alias pool is a pool of I2C addresses on the main I2C bus that can be
+      used to access the remote peripherals on the serializer's I2C bus. The
+      addresses must be available, not used by any other peripheral. Each
+      remote peripheral is assigned an alias from the pool, and transactions to
+      that address will be forwarded to the remote peripheral, with the address
+      translated to the remote peripheral's real address. This property is not
+      needed if there are no I2C addressable remote peripherals.

After some initial discussion with Tomi on IRC, this question is
probably more for Luca:

Why is "i2c-alias-pool" in the drivers binding and not a regular i2c

Where should be the binding documented? A new Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-atr.yaml file that only contains the i2c-alias-pool?

binding? Same question for the implementation of the alias-pool
handling. Shouldn't this be in the i2c-atr library? I'd think managing
the list of aliases would look all the same in the drivers otherwise?

I think this is fine, but I also think that we need to keep the door open to other kinds of alias management. We only have a single user for this for now. A driver/device might have other requirements for its i2c-atr. Say, a pool per link, or perhaps runtime events may affect the pool.

If we dictate the use of i2c-alias-pool property and the i2c-atr will automatically get an alias from that pool, i2c-atr won't be usable for the hypothetical drivers that have other needs.

With that in mind the current binding and i2c-atr.c is safe, as the i2c-atr.c isn't even aware of the pool.

We can easily re-arrange the code later if and when we get more users and understand their needs. But the bindings are important to get right(-ish) now. So:

- Is the "i2c-alias-pool" property a driver property or a common property for all drivers using i2c-atr?

- It the property mandatory or optional? It must be optional, as a setup (meaning, e.g., what cameras you happen to connect) might not have any i2c addressable remote devices, in which case the driver doesn't even need i2c-atr (even if it supports i2c-atr). But is it optional even in the case where the driver needs i2c-atr? In other words, do we allow some other way to manage the aliases?

How does this sound:

- If "i2c-alias-pool" is present in the DT data of the device passed to i2c_atr_new(), i2c_atr_new() will parse the property. i2c-atr.c will export functions to get a new alias and to release a previously reserved alias. The driver can use those functions in attach/detach_client() callbacks. In other words, the alias pool management wouldn't be fully automatic inside the i2c-atr, but it would provide helpers for the driver to do the common work.

- If "i2c-alias-pool" is not present, i2c-atr.c will behave as it does now, and expects the driver to manage the aliases.

Also, looking at the ub960 code... I don't think this will simplify the attach/detach_client callbacks much. Most of the code in those functions is about managing the UB960's registers related to ATR, not managing the address pool itself. However, it will remove the probe time "i2c-alias-pool" parsing from the driver, which is nice.

 Tomi




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux