Re: [PATCH v6 01/10] i3c: Add core I3C infrastructure

[Przemyslaw Gaj <pgaj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Boris,

On 8/28/18, 3:01 PM, "Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    EXTERNAL MAIL
    
    
    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.

Sure! Please give me some time. I'll try to do it this week or early next week.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Boris
    
Thanks,
Przemek