n Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:39:56 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The problem that I see is that it breaks the tree abstraction that
>> we use in the dtb interface, in the driver model and in sysfs.
>> If we need to deal with a hardware bus structure like
>>
>> cpu
>> / \
>> / \
>> platdev platdev
>> | |
>> i3c-master i3c-master
>> \ /
>> \ /
>> i3c-bus
>> / \
>> device device
>>
>> then that abstraction no longer holds. Clearly you could build
>> a system like that, and if we have to support it, the i3c infrastructure
>> should be prepared for it, since we wouldn't be able to retrofit
>> it later.
>
> Exactly. For the DT representation I thought we could have the primary
> master hold the device nodes, and then have secondary masters reference
> the main master with a phandle (i3c-bus = <&main_i3c_master>;). For the
> sysfs representation, it would be the same. Only one of the master
> would create the i3c_bus object and the other masters would just
> reference it.
Ok.
>> What would be the point of building such a system though?
>
> This, I don't know. But as you said, if we go for a "one bus per
> master" representation, going back will be difficult.
>
>> Is this for performance, failover, or something else?
>
> No, I don't think so, especially since the mastership handover
> operation is not free. So keeping the same master in control is
> probably better in term of perfs.
Right.
> One case I can think of is when the primary master does not have enough
> resources to address all devices on the bus, and let the secondary
> master handle all transactions targeting those devices.
>
I've read the specification a bit more, and from what I found there,
it seems extremely unlikely that there was an intended use case where
one OS instance would control more than one master on a single bus
and flip them between primary and secondary mode.
In particular, the protocol for the handover is defined in a way that
intentionally avoids requiring a side channel to communicate data
about the slave devices, and instead the secondary master(s) get
informed about any changes of the topology as they happen
through explicit messages.
The description of the secondary master labels the introduction section
of says
"I3C Smart Sensor(s) / Hub(s) / Engine(s)"
which sounds like some microcontroller that can act as a master of
some sort, rather than being part of the OS itself.
I can see several use cases for this, e.g.
* A baseboard management controller booting first, reading all
the sensors and possibly loading its own OS from an i3c flash
before handing off control to the main CPU of a server and
no longer being a master
* A fan controller that occasionally wants to read temperature
sensors and control fan speed, while normally being a
secondary master. It periodically asks the OS to become
a master to read the sensors and then immediately hands back
control to the host OS as the master
* Two controllers inside of the same SoC, but one of them owned
by ARM Trustzone firmware or the Intel equivalent, the other
owned by the OS, both accessing the same slaves.
All of these require implementing handover between primary
and secondary master, but Linux would still see a hierarchical
bus structure, with the secondary masters looking like slave
devices that might request being masters during some time.
We may also run into the requirement that a master we probe
is currently the secondary master and has to probe the bus
by asking the current master for the available devices, and
then taking over.
>> IOW, what feature would we lose if we were to declare that
>> setup above invalid (and ensure you cannot represent it in DT)?
>
> That's exactly the sort of discussion I wanted to trigger. Maybe we
> shouldn't care and expose this use case as if it was X different I3C
> buses (with all devices present on the bus being exposed X times
> to the system).
That's probably fine for many slave devices (you could read a
single sensor multiple times if you iterate through all i2c sensors
on all buses) but might not work for others (a slave device sending
an interrupt to the current master for a request that was started
from the previous master).
My impression however is that this is actually a corner case that
we can leave to be undefined, and not prepare to handle well,
as long as we can deal with the interesting examples above.
>> > The devices discovered on the bus are not directly registered to the
>> > device model, and I need to store them in a list to do some operations
>> > before exposing them. Once everything is ready to be used, I then
>> > iterate the list and register all not-yet-registered I3C devs.
>>
>> Can you explain what those operations are and why we can't
>> register everything directly? This seems rather unconventional,
>> so I want to make sure it's done for a good reason.
>
> When we start a DAA operation (used to discover all devices on the
> bus), we have the bus lock held in maintenance mode (AKA exclusive
> mode). During this DAA the controller will add all the devices it has
> discovered on the bus and let the core query information about those
> devices (PID, DCR, HDR capabilies, SDR speed limitations, ...). It
> might also happen that a device that had been discovered previously is
> re-discovered because it had lost its dynamic address (i.e. when
> the device had been reset but not by Linux). In this case the I3C
> framework does not expose a new device but instead updates the dynamic
> address of the device already registered to the device model, so that
> new transactions initiated by the I3C device driver work correctly.
> This is the very reason we hold the lock in exclusive mode (we want all
> transactions to be stopped until we have updated dynamic addresses if
> needed).
>
> Now, let's imagine you register the device when the bus lock is held in
> exclusive mode, and the ->probe() function of the I3C driver needs to
> do an I3C transfer => you end up with a deadlock.
>
> So what we do instead is add new devices to the i3c bus list, release
> the bus lock and then register all new devices.
Ok, but maybe you could you put the information about those devices
on a local list on the stack rather than the controller? I suppose this
would not change the logic much, but it would slightly simplify the
data structures for the bus and stop others from wondering about
them. ;-)
This is a really minor point though, let's work out the problem of the
multiple masters first.
Arnd
