From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pierre-yves.mordret@st.com (Pierre Yves MORDRET) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:17:21 +0100 Subject: [RESEND PATCH v1 2/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add slave support In-Reply-To: <20180320095242.tedafu5wphsx55qx@katana> References: <1520852023-27083-1-git-send-email-pierre-yves.mordret@st.com> <1520852023-27083-3-git-send-email-pierre-yves.mordret@st.com> <20180317205109.gocf5wemtjkyomct@ninjato> <5a3c5b21-bc66-ce73-a997-f686ecc275f3@st.com> <20180320095242.tedafu5wphsx55qx@katana> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/20/2018 10:52 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> I do believe the hw can support it, even it looks odd to me having the same I2C >> in slave and master mode at the same time. > > I2C is multi-master, so it is perfectly valid for a device to be master > and slave. I do have seen designs making use of that more than once. > >> Nevertheless the driver is devised to support either master or slave more but >> not at the same time. > > Why should we limit ourselves here? Also, why should we have an > unnecessary configuration option? > > Unless the HW is broken and does not support it, I usually don't accept > slave-only solutions. If the needs for master and slave arises later, > this is hard to refactor and better done properly right away. > > Is it so hard? Usually you have irqs for master and for slave seperated, > so you can code things quite orthogonal. Check de20d1857dd6 ("i2c: rcar: > add slave support") as an example. > I need to check at my end but status bits are shared between master and slave in my IP: i.e. Tx Empty, Rx Empty, NAxk, Stop. Both bits have a meaning in either master and slave mode. In your case status bits are separated between master and slave. BTW I need to think about it.