On 2021/6/29 18:07, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Hi,
so some minor comments left:
+ if (!msgs[i].len)
+ break;
I hope this can extended in the future to allow zero-length messages. If
this is impossible we need to set an adapter quirk instead.
Yes, we can support it by removing this check and call it zero-length
request.
It don't think it will break anything.
+ err = virtqueue_add_sgs(vq, sgs, outcnt, incnt, &reqs[i], GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (err < 0) {
+ pr_err("failed to add msg[%d] to virtqueue.\n", i);
Is it really helpful for the user to know that msg5 failed? We don't
even say which transfer.
OK. I will remove this print.
+static u32 virtio_i2c_func(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
+{
+ return I2C_FUNC_I2C | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL;
You are not emulating I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_QUICK, so you need to mask it out.
I will remove the check of zero-length message.
+ snprintf(vi->adap.name, sizeof(vi->adap.name), "Virtio I2C Adapter");
Is there something to add so you can distinguish multiple instances?
Most people want that.
I find the I2C core will set a device name "i2c-%d" for this purpose, right?
I think this name can be used to distinguish the adapter types while
"i2c-%d" can be used to
distinguish instances. Does it make sense ?
+ vi->adap.class = I2C_CLASS_DEPRECATED;
+ vi->adap.algo = &virtio_algorithm;
+ vi->adap.dev.parent = &vdev->dev;
+ vi->adap.timeout = HZ / 10;
Why so short? HZ is the kinda default value.
Ah... I didn't know the I2C core had already set a default value.
I will remove this line to use the default one.
+ i2c_set_adapdata(&vi->adap, vi);
+
+ /* Setup ACPI node for controlled devices which will be probed through ACPI */
+ ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&vi->adap.dev, ACPI_COMPANION(pdev));
+
+ ret = i2c_add_adapter(&vi->adap);
+ if (ret) {
+ virtio_i2c_del_vqs(vdev);
+ dev_err(&vdev->dev, "failed to add virtio-i2c adapter.\n");
Won't the driver core print that for us?
Yes. It seems unnecessary. Will remove it.
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+/* The bit 0 of the @virtio_i2c_out_hdr.@flags, used to group the requests */
+#define VIRTIO_I2C_FLAGS_FAIL_NEXT 0x00000001
BIT(0)?
That's better. Thank you.
Happy hacking,
Wolfram
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
