From: "Datta, Shubhrajyoti" <shubhrajyoti.datta@amd.com>
To: Krzysztof Adamski <krzysztof.adamski@nokia.com>,
Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
Raviteja Narayanam <raviteja.narayanam@xilinx.com>,
"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
"michal.simek@xilinx.com" <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"git@xilinx.com" <git@xilinx.com>,
"joe@perches.com" <joe@perches.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 03/10] i2c: xiic: Switch to Xiic standard mode for i2c-read
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 05:45:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BY5PR12MB49028DFD334FE0F716E64E1F81BE9@BY5PR12MB4902.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1c944d68-a950-1069-40dd-7f5ebdc395f5@nokia.com>
[AMD Official Use Only - General]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Adamski <krzysztof.adamski@nokia.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 12:32 PM
> To: Datta, Shubhrajyoti <shubhrajyoti.datta@amd.com>; Marek Vasut
> <marex@denx.de>; Raviteja Narayanam <raviteja.narayanam@xilinx.com>;
> linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org; michal.simek@xilinx.com
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> git@xilinx.com; joe@perches.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] i2c: xiic: Switch to Xiic standard mode for i2c-
> read
>
> [CAUTION: External Email]
>
> W dniu 30.06.2022 o 10:23, Datta, Shubhrajyoti pisze:
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Krzysztof Adamski <krzysztof.adamski@nokia.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 7:40 PM
> >> To: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>; Raviteja Narayanam
> >> <raviteja.narayanam@xilinx.com>; linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org;
> >> michal.simek@xilinx.com
> >> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; git@xilinx.com; joe@perches.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] i2c: xiic: Switch to Xiic standard mode
> >> for i2c- read
> >>
> >> [CAUTION: External Email]
> >>
> >> CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please
> >> use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking
> >> links, or responding to this email.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Marek,
> >>
> >> W dniu 29.06.2022 o 16:05, Marek Vasut pisze:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> If those two modes only differ in software complexity but we are
> >>>> not able to support only the simpler one and we have support for
> >>>> the more complicated (standard mode) anyways, we know that
> standard
> >>>> mode can handle or the cases while dynamic mode cannot, we also
> >>>> know that dynamic mode is broken on some versions of the core, why
> >>>> do we actually keep support for dynamic mode?
> >>> If I recall it right, the dynamic mode was supposed to handle
> >>> transfers longer than 255 Bytes, which the core cannot do in
> >>> Standard mode. It is needed e.g. by Atmel MXT touch controller. I
> >>> spent a lot of time debugging the race conditions in the XIIC, which
> >>> I ultimately fixed (the patches are upstream), but the long
> >>> transfers I rather fixed in the MXT driver instead.
> >>>
> >>> I also recall there was supposed to be some update for the XIIC core
> >>> coming with newer vivado, but I might be wrong about that.
> >> It seems to be the other way around - dynamic mode is limited to 255
> >> bytes - when you trigger dynamic mode you first write the address of
> >> the slave to the FIFO, then you write the length as one byte so you
> >> can't request more than 255 bytes. So *standard* mode is used for
> >> those messages. In other words - dynamic mode is the one that is more
> >> limited
> >> - everything that you can do in dynamic mode you can also do in
> >> standard mode. So why don't we use standard mode always for
> everything?
> > However the current mode is dynamic mode so for less than 255 we can
> > use dynamic mode.(the current behavior will not change) Also the
> > dynamic mode is nicer on the processor resources. We set the bytes and
> the controller takes care of transferring.
> >
> > However do not have any strong views open to suggestions.
>
> All I'm saying is that before this patchset, the dynamic mode was used in all
> cases and it made sense - it is easier to work with. But it turned out it has its
> limitations and support for standard mode was added with several cases that
> switch to that mode. The commit message suggests that the only difference is
> in how complicated the code for handling them is, does not say why dynamic
> mode might still be preferred. And supporting both of them complicates the
> code noticeably.
> My understanding now is that the code struggles to use the dynamic mode in
> all cases that it can because that produces less interrupts and so it is slightly
> lighter on resources. So it is a code complication vs effectiveness tradeoff.
> Since this is I2C - a slow bus, I'm not sure it is worth it but also don't have
> strong opinion on that. If nothing else, I think it would make sense to update
> the commit message a little bit to better explain why it is worth keeping both
> modes.
Will update the commit message in the next version.
>
> Krzysztof
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-04 5:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-26 10:27 [PATCH v2 00/10] i2c: xiic: Add features, bug fixes Raviteja Narayanam
2021-06-26 10:27 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] i2c: xiic: Fix Tx Interrupt path for grouped messages Raviteja Narayanam
2021-06-26 10:27 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] i2c: xiic: Add standard mode support for > 255 byte read transfers Raviteja Narayanam
2022-06-29 11:02 ` Krzysztof Adamski
2022-06-29 11:39 ` Michal Simek
2022-06-29 12:07 ` Krzysztof Adamski
2021-06-26 10:27 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] i2c: xiic: Switch to Xiic standard mode for i2c-read Raviteja Narayanam
2022-06-29 12:47 ` Krzysztof Adamski
2022-06-29 14:05 ` Marek Vasut
2022-06-29 14:09 ` Krzysztof Adamski
2022-06-29 14:34 ` Marek Vasut
2022-06-30 8:23 ` Datta, Shubhrajyoti
2022-07-01 7:01 ` Krzysztof Adamski
2022-07-04 5:45 ` Datta, Shubhrajyoti [this message]
2021-06-26 10:28 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] i2c: xiic: Remove interrupt enable/disable in Rx path Raviteja Narayanam
2021-06-26 10:28 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] dt-bindings: i2c: xiic: Add 'xlnx,axi-iic-2.1' to compatible Raviteja Narayanam
2021-06-26 10:28 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] i2c: xiic: Update compatible with new IP version Raviteja Narayanam
2021-06-26 10:28 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] i2c: xiic: Return value of xiic_reinit Raviteja Narayanam
2021-06-26 10:28 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] i2c: xiic: Fix the type check for xiic_wakeup Raviteja Narayanam
2021-06-26 10:28 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] i2c: xiic: Fix coding style issues Raviteja Narayanam
2021-06-26 10:28 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] i2c: xiic: Add smbus_block_read functionality Raviteja Narayanam
2021-06-28 7:23 ` [PATCH v2 00/10] i2c: xiic: Add features, bug fixes Michal Simek
2021-07-16 16:01 ` Marek Vasut
2021-07-19 10:09 ` Raviteja Narayanam
2021-07-19 18:00 ` Marek Vasut
2021-07-20 14:19 ` Raviteja Narayanam
2021-07-20 21:43 ` Marek Vasut
2021-07-26 5:26 ` Raviteja Narayanam
2021-07-26 13:12 ` Marek Vasut
2021-07-28 10:11 ` Raviteja Narayanam
2021-07-28 18:47 ` Marek Vasut
2022-06-28 7:50 ` Guntupalli, Manikanta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BY5PR12MB49028DFD334FE0F716E64E1F81BE9@BY5PR12MB4902.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=shubhrajyoti.datta@amd.com \
--cc=git@xilinx.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=krzysztof.adamski@nokia.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marex@denx.de \
--cc=michal.simek@xilinx.com \
--cc=raviteja.narayanam@xilinx.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).