Hi Boris,
Sorry for the delayed response.
On 27/11/18 12:33, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Vitor,
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 11:50:53 +0000
vitor<vitor.soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry for that and don't take me wrong... maybe I should rise this
question early but this only came up now when I started splitting and
thinking where to put what is for master for slave, what is common and
the thing of putting everything of controller in a folder.
So you have such a dual-role controller?
Yes, we already talked about secondary master support.
There's a difference between a secondary master that waits for its time
to become the currrent master, and a secondary master that provides I3C
device features when it's acting as a slave (sensor, GPIO
controller, ...). So far we focused on supporting the former. If
there's a need for the latter, then we should start thinking about the
slave framework...
What I call a slave controller would be something that lets you reply to
SDR/DDR transactions or fill a generic regmap that would be exposed to
other masters on the bus. This way we could implement generic slave
drivers in Linux (the same way we have gadget drivers). Anything else
is likely to be to specific to be exposed as a generic framework.
I would bet to do something like in i2c, we don't need the same level of
complexity found in USB.
Can you detail a bit more what you have in mind? I don't think we can
do like I2C, simply because we need to expose a valid DCR +
manuf-ID/PID so that other masters can bind the device to the
appropriate driver on their side. Plus, if we're about to expose
generic profiles, we likely don't want each I3C slave controller driver
to do that on its own.
I think this should be discuss in another thread. Do you agree?
Taking the USB as exemple do you prefer a dwc folder on i3c root?
Hm, not sure I like this idea either. So I see 2 options:
1/ put all controller drivers (both master and slave ones) in a common
directory (drivers/i3c/controllers) as you suggest, and prefix them
correctly (i3c-master-<ip>.c, i3c-slave-<ip>.c and i3c-dual-<ip>.c)
I agree with the controller folder but not with prefix. Please check
what is already in the kernel.
If we mix everything in the same subdir, I'd like to have an easy way
to quickly identify those that are slave controllers and those that are
master controllers. For the dual-role thing, maybe we can consider them
as master (ones with advances slave features).
Would you be okay with drivers/i3c/controllers/{designware,dw}/..., so
that you can have all designware drivers (for both slave and master
blocks) in the same dir?
Yes, that was what I trying to tell you. For me this might be the best
option.
I would like to avoid having dual role i3c driver in a master folder.
For those that are placed directly under drivers/i3c/controllers/...
(because they only have one .c file), I'd like to keep a standard
prefix.
I don't disagree, and for those that have more than one file they should
be in a folder, right?
What prefix do you have in mind for those files inside a folder?
To be clear, the subsystem is nice and I working with daily. As I said
this is something that I dealing now and I'm telling what I think that
is not correct.
Come on! All I've seen so far are complaints on tiny details, it
definitely doesn't prevent you from adding new features.
Regards,
Boris
No, it's not. But as you can see to slipt the driver in parts this
subject has some relevance.
Best regards,
Vitor Soares
