i3c_master_add_i3c_dev_locked() accept PID, BCR, DCR

[bbrezillon@kernel.org (Boris Brezillon)]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:43:30 +0100
Boris Brezillon <b.brezillon.dev@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Vitor,
> 
> Can you please keep Cc-ing me when you send I3C patches. Sending it
> only to the ML is not enough, maintainers should be Cc-ed too.
> 
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:21:37 +0000
> vitor <vitor.soares@synopsys.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The function bellow doesn't accept the PID, BCR and DCR captured
> > during the ENTDAA.
> > 
> > int i3c_master_add_i3c_dev_locked(struct i3c_master_controller *master,
> > ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? u8 addr)
> > {
> > ?? ?struct i3c_device_info info = { .dyn_addr = addr };
> > 
> > 
> > I would like to change it to received those parameters. Something like this:
> > 
> > int i3c_master_add_i3c_dev_locked(struct i3c_master_controller *master,
> > ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? u64 pid, u8 bcr, u8 dcr, u8 addr)
> > {
> > ?? ?struct i3c_device_info info = { .pid = pid,
> > ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?.bcr = bcr,
> > ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?.dcr = dcr,
> > ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?.dyn_addr = addr };
> > 
> > Do you agree?  
> 
> I need a reason, like for every other requests you made.
> 
> Why do you need it? Do you want to check the value returned by the
> GETBCR, GETDCR and GETPID operations? Do you want to skip those
> operations in the DAA case, and if you do, why? How will that work for
> the non-DAA case (SETDASA)?

For the record, I initially decided to not pass pid, bcr and dcr to
i3c_master_add_i3c_dev_locked() to have a single function working for
both DAA and SETDASA cases. Given how fast it is to send 3 CCC commands
per device (and the limited number of devices per bus) I didn't think it
was useful to optimize it. If you think otherwise, I'd like to hear your
arguments.