[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190829172441.3a76385e@collabora.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:24:41 +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 15:07:08 +0000
Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@...opsys.com> wrote:
> From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 15:39:41
>
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:39:18 +0200
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > [1]https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__elixir.bootlin.com_linux_v5.3-2Drc6_source_drivers_i3c_master.c-23L1898&d=DwICAg&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=qVuU64u9x77Y0Kd0PhDK_lpxFgg6PK9PateHwjb_DY0&m=IXS1ygIgEo5vwajk0iwd5aBDVBzRnVTjO3cg4iBmGNc&s=HC-AcYm-AZPrUBoALioej_BDnqOtJHltr39Z2yPkuU4&e=
>
> That is only valid if you have olddev which will only exist if static
> address != 0.
Hm, if you revert patch 1 (and assuming the device is properly defined
in the DT), you should have olddev != NULL when reaching that point. If
that's not the case there's a bug somewhere that should be fixed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists