On 08/15/2017 12:35 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2017-08-15 18:28, Christopher Bostic wrote:
On 8/15/17 3:10 AM, Joel Stanley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2017-07-26 19:13, Eddie James wrote:
From: "Edward A. James" <eajames@xxxxxxxxxx>
This series adds an algorithm for an I2C master physically located on an FSI
slave device. The I2C master has multiple ports, each of which may be connected
to an I2C slave. Access to the I2C master registers is achieved over FSI bus.
Due to the multi-port nature of the I2C master, the driver instantiates a new
I2C adapter for each port connected to a slave. The connected ports should be
defined in the device tree under the I2C master device.
Hmmm, AFAIU fsi is a bus, and on this bus you have some "client" device that
happens to be an i2c master, and this is a driver for that "client". Is it
totally inconceivable to have some other client device in the future that is
implementing an i2c master differently, but still using the fsi bus?
With that in mind, is it wise to pick the driver name from the bus that the
device is connected to, and nothing else without further qualification?
I don't see any "i2c-usb" driver, but I think there are a couple of i2c master
drivers that communicate via usb.
You make a fair point. When I did a prototype of this driver I called
it i2c-cfam, as it is part of the CFAM hardware unit inside of the
Power8/Power9 processors.
The documentation does call it FSI_I2CM, so that's an argument for the
current name.
I'm not sure how accurate that name is. Chris, Eddie, do you have any
other suggestions?
The I2C engine up to now has been always accessed via the FSI bus so
historically I assume that's why its labelled as FSI_I2CM in the p8/p9
specs. There isn't any reason this I2C device couldn't be implemented
in some other topology independent of FSI / CFAMs. In other words there
are no FSI details internal to this I2C engine, an argument for removing
the 'FSI' tag.
Note that I wasn't primarily concerned with this i2c engine growing some other
non-fsi interface (like many devices have both i2c and spi interface versions).
I was more concerned with some future and totally different i2c engine that
naturally sports a totally different register map but still uses the fsi bus.
But you have a point. If this i2c engine evolves and ends up supporting some
other interface, then that too would be cause to regret the i2c-fsi name.
i2c-cfam would work, though it would also be possible for another type
of i2c engine to exist on a CFAM... it has been done in the past.
Historically, this driver was called "iic-boe" for "Boeblingen". I'm not
suggesting it's a good name for this driver, but it is unique...
Edduie
Cheers,
peda
