RE: [PATCH v2 03/10] i2c: xiic: Switch to Xiic standard mode for i2c-read

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: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 08:23:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BY5PR12MB4902D6BAA8D1035BEF022D8E81BA9@BY5PR12MB4902.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6cf9647e-10dd-8523-962d-a7c40b532fe2@nokia.com>

[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.

> 
> Krzysztof