On 01-03-21, 14:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 02:09:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 05:24:41PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 01-03-21, 14:41, Jie Deng wrote:
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * struct virtio_i2c_req - the virtio I2C request structure
> > > > + * @out_hdr: the OUT header of the virtio I2C message
> > > > + * @write_buf: contains one I2C segment being written to the device
> > > > + * @read_buf: contains one I2C segment being read from the device
> > > > + * @in_hdr: the IN header of the virtio I2C message
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct virtio_i2c_req {
> > > > + struct virtio_i2c_out_hdr out_hdr;
> > > > + u8 *write_buf;
> > > > + u8 *read_buf;
> > > > + struct virtio_i2c_in_hdr in_hdr;
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > I am not able to appreciate the use of write/read bufs here as we
> > > aren't trying to read/write data in the same transaction. Why do we
> > > have two bufs here as well as in specs ?
> >
> > I²C and SMBus support bidirectional transfers as well. I think two buffers is
> > the right thing to do.
>
> Strictly speaking "half duplex".
Half duplex is what this driver implemented, i.e. only one side can
send a msg at once, we don't need two buffers for that for sure.
Though we need two buffers if we are ever going to support full
duplex.
--
viresh
