On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:21:40 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:10:26 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> On 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:
>>
>> If we can ignore the case of handing over between two masters that
>> we both own, we end up being in just one of two states:
>>
>> a) currently we are the master
>> b) we are not currently the master but have asked the current
>> master to transfer ownership back to us. For this, we have to
>> know who the current master is of course.
>>
>> I think that's the simplest case that would work with the specification,
>> but it relies on the assumption that the master controlled by Linux
>> is always more important than any other master, and that we just
>> hand over ownership for as long as the others want it.
>>
>> If that is not the case, we also need a third state
>>
>> c) we have handed ownership to another master that is equally
>> important, but no i2c device driver is currently trying to talk
>> to a device, so we don't need ownership back until a slave driver
>> changes state.
>
> That was the solution I was opting for.
>
>>
>> The main difference between b) and c) that I see would be what
>> happens with in-band interrupts. If I understand the specification
>> correctly, only the current master receives them, so if you have
>> any i2c device that uses interrupts to talk to a Linux driver, we
>
> ^ you mean i3c here, right?
sure
>> want to be in b) rather than c). An example of this would be
>> an input device on a PC: If the user operateds the keyboard
>> or pointer and we have handed off ownership to a sensor hub,
>> we never get an input event, right?
>
> Correct. I guess we could try to regain bus ownership in case we have
> IBIs enabled. Or we let the secondary master give the bus back to us
> when it sees IBIs it can't handle, as described in section 5.1.7:
>
> "
> Once granted control of the Bus, the Secondary Master maintains
> control until another Master is granted Bus control. After the
> Secondary Master transitions to the Current Master role it could
> encounter Bus management activities besides the data transfers that it
> itself initiates. Some examples are the In-Band Interrupt, or the
> Hot-Join request. One optional possibility, shown at Section 5.1.7.2,
> is that the Secondary Master performs the Current Master’s actions with
> the full capabilities of the Main Master. Another optional possibility
> is that the Secondary Master, while serving in the Current Master role,
> could defer some actions to a more capable Master, as described in
> Section 5.1.7.3.
> "
Ah, so the current master can ask a secondary master to take over
again even if the secondary master has not requested to be come the
current master?
>> > I agree. This being said, moving to a representation where the bus is
>> > implicitly represented by the master_controller instance shouldn't be
>> > too difficult. So, if you think we should try this approach I can do
>> > the modifications in my v6.
>>
>> I'd say let's wait before you do that change, possibly add a comment
>> in there now to remind us of what an alternative would be.
>
> You mean I should keep the i3c_bus object?
I mean the ongoing discussion shouldn't stop you from posting a v6.
Arnd
