Hi Laurent,
On 07/01/2020 17:11, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Kieran,
>
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:40:35AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>> On 31/12/2019 16:13, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> Some devices are able to reprogram their I2C address at runtime. This
>>> can prevent address collisions when one is able to activate and
>>> reprogram these devices one by one. For that to work, they need to be
>>> assigned an unused address. This new functions allows drivers to request
>>> for such an address. It assumes all non-occupied addresses are free. It
>>> will then send a message to such a free address to make sure there is
>>> really nothing listening there.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/i2c.h | 2 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
>>> index 51bd953ddfb2..5a010e7e698f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
>>> @@ -2241,6 +2241,28 @@ static int i2c_detect(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, struct i2c_driver *driver)
>>> return err;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +struct i2c_client *i2c_new_alias_device(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>>> +{
>>> + struct i2c_client *alias = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>>> + int ret;
>>> + u16 addr;
>>> +
>>> + i2c_lock_bus(adap, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT);
>>> +
>>> + for (addr = 0x08; addr < 0x78; addr++) {
>>> + ret = i2c_scan_for_client(adap, addr, i2c_unlocked_read_byte_probe);
>>
>> Are all 'known' devices on a bus (all the ones declared in DT etc)
>> marked as 'busy' or taken by the time this call is made? (edit, I don't
>> think they are)
>>
>> Perhaps this is a constructed corner case, but I'm just trying to follow
>> it through:
>>
>> I.e. if say the adv748x had in DT defined aliases at 0x08, 0x09,
>> 0x0A..., but not yet probed (thus no device is listening at these
>> addresses) ... and then a max9286 came along and asked for 'any' spare
>> address with this call, would it be given 0x08 first?
>>
>> If so (which I think is what the case would be currently, until I'm
>> pointed otherwise) do we need to mark all addresses on the bus as
>> reserved against this some how?
>>
>> I'm not sure how that would occur, as it would be up to the adv748x in
>> that instance to parse it's extended register list to identify the extra
>> aliases it will create, *and* that would only happen if the device
>> driver was enabled in the first place.
>>
>> So this seems a bit 'racy' in a different context; not the i2c_lock_bus,
>> but rather the probe order of devices on the bus could affect the
>> allocations.
>>
>> Perhaps that is unavoidable though...
>
> But it's a real problem... Could the I2C core parse all the addresses on
> the bus before probing drivers ?
That's my point :-D
The core 'could' parse all reg entries, and conclude that any extended
entries within a device node are aliases as well, which should be
reserved, but I don't think it could know if the device is actually
going to be enabled by a driver (well, it could look it up).
I think if core-i2c parses all device tree nodes for register addresses
first, it would have to consider all addresses it came across as
potentially in use.
But it would also have to traverse any i2c-muxes too!
--
Kieran
>
>>> + if (ret == -ENODEV) {
>>> + alias = i2c_new_dummy_device(adap, addr);
>>> + dev_dbg(&adap->dev, "Found alias: 0x%x\n", addr);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + i2c_unlock_bus(adap, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT);
>>> + return alias;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(i2c_new_alias_device);
>>> +
>>> int i2c_probe_func_quick_read(struct i2c_adapter *adap, unsigned short addr)
>>> {
>>> return i2c_smbus_xfer(adap, addr, 0, I2C_SMBUS_READ, 0,
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/i2c.h b/include/linux/i2c.h
>>> index f834687989f7..583ca2aec022 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/i2c.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/i2c.h
>>> @@ -441,6 +441,8 @@ i2c_new_device(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_board_info const *info);
>>> struct i2c_client *
>>> i2c_new_client_device(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_board_info const *info);
>>>
>>> +struct i2c_client *i2c_new_alias_device(struct i2c_adapter *adap);
>>> +
>>> /* If you don't know the exact address of an I2C device, use this variant
>>> * instead, which can probe for device presence in a list of possible
>>> * addresses. The "probe" callback function is optional. If it is provided,
>
--
Regards
--
Kieran
