[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180227221407.0cd7f8a9@bbrezillon>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 22:14:07 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To: Przemyslaw Sroka <psroka@...ence.com>
Cc: Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@...opsys.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Arkadiusz Golec <agolec@...ence.com>,
Alan Douglas <adouglas@...ence.com>,
Bartosz Folta <bfolta@...ence.com>,
Damian Kos <dkos@...ence.com>,
Alicja Jurasik-Urbaniak <alicja@...ence.com>,
Cyprian Wronka <cwronka@...ence.com>,
Suresh Punnoose <sureshp@...ence.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] i3c: Add core I3C infrastructure
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 20:24:43 +0000
Przemyslaw Sroka <psroka@...ence.com> wrote:
> > > SETDASA is simply faster than ENTDAA, but only if there is no
> > > need to collect BCR/DCR/PID of such devices. I think most
> > > applications would like to have them as an status information so
> > > after all ENTDAA can be regarded as an generic approach (unless
> > > I'm mistaken).
> >
> > Actually, we could retrieve BCR/DCR/PID (and all other relevant
> > information, like MAXDS) even with the SETDASA approach. We just
> > need to send the according CCC commands after SETDASA.
> >
> I agree, what I meant by "SETDASA is simply faster than ENTDAA, but
> only if there is no need to collect BCR/DCR/PID of such devices." Is
> that it is faster than DAA but only if not followed by GET CCC
> commands to gather BCR/DCR/PID. I think we are on the same page here.
Yes, but right now it's not the case, see my other reply ;-).
>
> > But that's also my understanding that ENTDAA should always work, and
> > SETDASA usage is only needed if you want to reserve a dynamic
> > address and assign it to a device before DAA takes place. This way
> > you can enforce the device priority (WRT IBIs). But honestly,
> > that's the only use case I can think of, and to me, it sounds like
> > an advanced feature we may want to support at some point, but don't
> > need in the initial implementation.
> Still ENTDAA seems to be sufficient for IBI prioritization but I can
> imagine some use cases where people would like to use it for such
> purposes. Note that SETDASA is applicable only for devices with SA so
> it is self-explanatory that it cannot be considered as utility to
> define priorities for all devices before ENTDAA.
We have SETNEWDA for other use cases: say you want one of your device to
have an higher priority, you can just manually set a new dynamic
address that is lower than any other devices on the bus (I plan to
expose that through sysfs, by making the address file writable).
--
Boris Brezillon, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists