archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Furquan Shaikh <>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <>,,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: raydium_ts_i2c: Do not split tx transactions
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 22:54:46 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201201062807.GO2034289@dtor-ws>

Hello Dmitry,

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:28 PM Dmitry Torokhov
<> wrote:
> Hi Furquan,
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:00:50PM -0800, Furquan Shaikh wrote:
> > Raydium device does not like splitting of tx transactions into
> > multiple messages - one for the register address and one for the
> > actual data. This results in incorrect behavior on the device side.
> >
> > This change updates raydium_i2c_read and raydium_i2c_write to create
> > i2c_msg arrays separately and passes those arrays into
> > raydium_i2c_xfer which decides based on the address whether the bank
> > switch command should be sent. The bank switch header is still added
> > by raydium_i2c_read and raydium_i2c_write to ensure that all these
> > operations are performed as part of a single I2C transfer. It
> > guarantees that no other transactions are initiated to any other
> > device on the same bus after the bank switch command is sent.
> i2c_transfer locks the bus [segment] for the entire time, so this
> explanation on why the change is needed does not make sense.

The actual problem is with raydium_i2c_write chopping off the write
data into 2 messages -- one for register address and other for actual
data. Raydium devices do not like that. Hence, this change to ensure
that the register address and actual data are packaged into a single
message. The latter part of the above comment attempts to explain why
the bank switch message is added to xfer[] array in raydium_i2c_read
and raydium_i2c_write instead of sending a separate message in
raydium_i2c_xfer i.e. to ensure that the read/write xfer and bank
switch are sent to i2c_transfer as a single array of messages so that
they can be handled as an atomic operation from the perspective of
communication with this device on the bus.

> Also, does it help if you mark the data message as I2C_M_NOSTART in case
> of writes?

That is a great suggestion. I think this would be helpful in this
scenario. Let me follow-up on this to see if it helps with the current

> I also wonder if we should convert the driver to regmap, which should
> help with handling the bank switch as well as figuring out if it can do
> "gather write" or fall back to allocating an additional send buffer.

I will start with the above suggestion and fallback to this if that
doesn't work.

Thanks for the quick response and the helpful suggestions Dmitry. I
will work on these pointers and get back to you. Thanks again.

- Furquan

> Thanks.
> --
> Dmitry

  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-01  6:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-01  6:00 Furquan Shaikh
2020-12-01  6:28 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2020-12-01  6:54   ` Furquan Shaikh [this message]
2020-12-01  7:06     ` Dmitry Torokhov
2020-12-01  7:15       ` Furquan Shaikh
2020-12-05  0:59         ` [PATCH v2] " Furquan Shaikh
2020-12-07  6:20           ` Dmitry Torokhov

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] input: raydium_ts_i2c: Do not split tx transactions' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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).