[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210319054035.47tn747lkagpip6v@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:10:35 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Jie Deng <jie.deng@...el.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
conghui.chen@...el.com, kblaiech@...lanox.com,
jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com,
Sergey Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, loic.poulain@...aro.org,
Tali Perry <tali.perry1@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
yu1.wang@...el.com, shuo.a.liu@...el.com,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] i2c: virtio: add a virtio i2c frontend driver
On 19-03-21, 13:31, Jie Deng wrote:
>
> On 2021/3/19 11:54, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 18-03-21, 15:52, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Allowing multiple virtio-i2c controllers in one system, and multiple i2c
> > > devices attached to each controller is clearly something that has to work.
> > Good.
> >
> > > I don't actually see a limitation though. Viresh, what is the problem
> > > you see for having multiple controllers?
> > I thought this would be a problem in that case as we are using the global
> > virtio_adapter here.
> >
> > + vi->adap = &virtio_adapter;
> > + i2c_set_adapdata(vi->adap, vi);
> >
> > Multiple calls to probe() will end up updating the same pointer inside adap.
> >
> > + vi->adap->dev.parent = &vdev->dev;
> >
> > Same here, overwrite.
> >
> > + /* Setup ACPI node for controlled devices which will be probed through ACPI */
> > + ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&vi->adap->dev, ACPI_COMPANION(pdev));
> > + vi->adap->timeout = HZ / 10;
> >
> > These may be fine, but still not ideal I believe.
> >
> > + ret = i2c_add_adapter(vi->adap);
> > i
> > This should be a problem as well, we must be adding this to some sort of list,
> > doing some RPM stuff, etc ?
> >
> > Jie, the solution is to allocate memory for adap at runtime in probe and remove
> > the virtio_adapter structure completely.
>
>
> If you want to support that. Then I think we don't need to change the
> following at all.
>
> > + .algo = &virtio_algorithm,
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + vi->adap = virtio_adapter;
> This is strange, why are you allocating memory for adapter twice ?
> Once for virtio_adapter and once for vi->adap ? Either fill the fields
> directly for v->adap here and remove virtio_adapter or make vi->adap a
> pointer.
Yes, your previous version was partly okay but you don't need the
virtio_algorithm structure to be allocated. There are only 4 fields you are
updating here, just fill them directly in vi->adap.
(FWIW, I also suggested the same when I said
"Either fill the fields directly for v->adap here and remove virtio_adapter".
)
See how drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-versatile.c and most of the other drivers have
done it.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists