Hi Przemek, On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:55:20 +0000 Przemyslaw Gaj <pgaj@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > EXTERNAL MAIL > > > Hi Vitor, > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:50:12 +0100 > vitor <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
