From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
To: Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@synopsys.com>
Cc: Przemyslaw Gaj <pgaj@cadence.com>,
"linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org" <linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org>,
"bbrezillon@kernel.org" <bbrezillon@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: I3C Mastership RFC
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:22:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191125132219.2e45d084@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CH2PR12MB421667CED7F6A5FF0299E732AE4A0@CH2PR12MB4216.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:03:42 +0000
Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@synopsys.com> wrote:
> From: Przemyslaw Gaj <pgaj@cadence.com>
> Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:55:16
>
> > The 11/25/2019 11:42, Vitor Soares wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >
> > > From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
> > > Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:34:52
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:19:44 +0000
> > > > Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I based in all version and tried to pass everything to master.c file.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure what that means, but okay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Right now my challenge it to trigger mastership request when a device
> > > > > > > > > driver want to access to the bus but I believe we can discuss that after.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's kind of a basic feature when talking about mastership handover,
> > > > > > > > but sure, we can discuss it after your RFC has been posted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I need to test if the time that device.c request the mastership and the
> > > > > > > controller has effectively the ownership of the bus is short enough to
> > > > > > > call i3c_dev_do_priv_xfers_locked(dev->desc, xfers, nxfers) before of all
> > > > > > > housekeeping of bus takeover.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Note that I'm not super happy to have to go back to square 1 and throw
> > > > > > > > away all of the work done by Przemek, especially since Przemek was the
> > > > > > > > first one to post a patchset and he never really said he didn't
> > > > > > > > want or didn't have time to continue working on this task (not even
> > > > > > > > mentioning the time I spent reviewing those patches...).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If Przemek is fine with this situation I'm okay making an exception,
> > > > > > > > but be aware that it's not how we usually do: the person that posts a
> > > > > > > > patchset first leads the thing (of course, it's even better if there's
> > > > > > > > some kind of coordination before the patch is posted).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Honestly it looks like I'm competing on this which is not the case.
> > > > > > > I just pointed out my concerns about this adoption because I see several
> > > > > > > issues on it. The point is, at the end you can pick some parts of my sec
> > > > > > > master code and integrate in your solution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you point me to the version of the patch your changes are based on?
> > > > > > And also, can you tell me what issues you faced? I would like to check
> > > > > > if they are already adressed in my code.
> > > > >
> > > > > I used v3 and v4. From v5, I found useful the switch case (request,
> > > > > deliver, handoff, takeover) in hc side.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't hardly test how device.c request mastership but I suspect it
> > > > > won't work properly. When you do i3c_dev_do_priv_xfers_locked() you might
> > > > > not be the master yet.
> > > >
> > > > I'm pretty sure we solved that already (that's what
> > > > i3c_master_acquire_bus_ownership() calls are supposed to take care of).
> > > > Can you be a bit more specific? What makes you think the master might
> > > > not be in control of the bus when i3c_dev_do_priv_xfers_locked() is
> > > > called?
> > >
> > > You are assuming that after i3c_master_acquire_bus_ownership() return,
> > > secondary master already owns the bus. Main master can ack the MR request
> > > and not send the CETACCMST immediately.
> > >
> >
> > In Cadence HC driver, I'm waiting for GETACCMST longer, polling the
> > status and after I exit from ->request_mastership(), I'm the bus owner.
> > If not, error exit code is returned and we can't make the transfers.
> > Are you able to implement the same behavior?
>
> You can assume everyone will do in that way. What happen if you receive a
> request or an information from current master?
We have this ->request_mastership() method so controllers that have
this logic (MR+wait(GETACCMST) automated can still interface with the
subsystem. If your controller handles the MR/GETACCMST separately, it
shouldn't be hard to implement, and we can even provide an helper if
people end up duplicating the code.
_______________________________________________
linux-i3c mailing list
linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-i3c
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-25 12:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-06 9:33 I3C Mastership RFC Przemyslaw Gaj
2019-11-10 10:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-11-11 12:30 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-12 7:41 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-11-14 6:10 ` Przemyslaw Gaj
2019-11-14 11:56 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-14 12:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-11-14 12:59 ` Przemyslaw Gaj
2019-11-14 14:17 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-14 14:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-11-14 20:15 ` Przemyslaw Gaj
2019-11-25 8:02 ` Przemyslaw Gaj
2019-11-25 11:19 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-25 11:34 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-11-25 11:42 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-25 11:55 ` Przemyslaw Gaj
2019-11-25 12:03 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-25 12:22 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2019-11-25 13:00 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-25 13:09 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-11-25 14:27 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-25 14:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-11-25 14:59 ` Przemyslaw Gaj
2019-11-25 15:22 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-25 12:25 ` Przemyslaw Gaj
2019-11-25 12:56 ` Vitor Soares
2019-11-25 11:50 ` Przemyslaw Gaj
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=20191125132219.2e45d084@collabora.com \
--to=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \
--cc=Vitor.Soares@synopsys.com \
--cc=bbrezillon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=pgaj@cadence.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).