[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190829163918.571fd0d8@collabora.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:39:18 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
To: Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@...opsys.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org>,
"bbrezillon@...nel.org" <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com" <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] i3c: master: Check if devices have
i3c_dev_boardinfo on i3c_master_add_i3c_dev_locked()
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:00:44 +0000
Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@...opsys.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:44:57
>
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:19:33 +0200
> > Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@...opsys.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The I3C devices described in DT might not be attached to the master which
> > > doesn't allow to assign a specific dynamic address.
> >
> > I remember testing this when developing the framework, so, unless
> > another patch regressed it, it should already work. I suspect patch 1
> > is actually the regressing this use case.
>
> For today it doesn't address the case where the device is described with
> static address = 0, which isn't attached to the controller.
Hm, I'm pretty sure I had designed the code to support that case (see
[1]). It might be buggy, but nothing we can't fix I guess.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists