Hi Tomi, On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 14:40:24 +0200 Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 19/01/2023 10:43, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 19:43:23 +0200 > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 07:28:20PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >>> On 18/01/2023 18:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:40:24PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> You can find the v6 from: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230105140307.272052-1-tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Main changes: > >>>>> > >>>>> * i2c-atr: Use bus notifier. This allows us to drop the patch that adds > >>>>> the attach_client/detach_client callbacks. On the downside, it removes > >>>>> the option for error handling if the translation setup fails, and also > >>>>> doesn't provide us the pointer to the i2c_board_info. I belive both > >>>>> are acceptable downsides. > >>>>> > >>>>> * Use fwnode in the fpdlink drivers instead of OF > >>>>> > >>>>> * Addressed all the review comments (I hope) > >>>>> > >>>>> * Lots of cosmetic or minor fixes which I came up while doing the fwnode > >>>>> change > >>>> > >>>> I believe my comments to the first driver applies to the next two, so please > >>>> address them whenever you are agree / it's possible / it makes sense. > >>>> > >>>> About ATR implementation. We have the i2c bus (Linux representation of > >>>> the driver model) and i2c_adapter and i2c_client objects there. Can't we > >>>> have an i2c_client_aliased in similar way and be transparent with users? > >> > >>> Can you clarify what you mean here? > >>> > >>> The i2c_clients are not aware of the i2c-atr. They are normal i2c clients. > >>> The FPD-Link drivers are aware of the ATR, as the FPD-Link hardware contains > >>> the ATR support. > >> > >> Can't that hardware be represented as I2C adapter? In such case the ATR specifics > >> can be hidden from the client (drivers). > >> > >> I'm worrying about code duplication and other things that leak into drivers as > >> ATR callbacks. > > > > Which callbacks do you refer to? i2c_atr_ops? I don't think we can do > > without the attach/detach_client ones, it's where the driver-specific > > implementation is hooked for the generic ATR infra to call it. > > > > However now I noticed the select/deselect ops are still there. IIRC > > they are not used by any driver and in the past the plan was to just > > remove them. Tomi, do you think there is a good reason to keep them? > > I thought you had a reason to add them, so I didn't remove them =). I > can drop them. Yes, please drop them. It's the usual "it looked like a good idea" situation... :) -- Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
