Re: I3C Mastership RFC

[Przemyslaw Gaj <pgaj@cadence.com>]

Hi Vitor,

I don't want to bother you but I have to start working on that ASAP. I
hope you understand. Can you answer few questions?

The 11/14/2019 14:17, Vitor Soares wrote:
> 
> From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
> Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:32:14
> 
> > Hi Vitor,
> > 
> > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:56:00 +0000
> > Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > From: Przemyslaw Gaj <pgaj@cadence.com>
> > > Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:10:12
> > > 
> > > > Hi Vitor,
> > > > 
> > > > The 11/12/2019 08:41, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Vitor,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:30:45 +0000
> > > > > Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > > > >   
> > > > > > Hi Boris and Przemek,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I have a working version for tests purposes. Yet, I have some basic TODOS 
> > > > > > to address during the takeover of the bus.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Okay. Would you mind sharing a branch with this material so Przemek and
> > > > > I can have a look at it?  
> > > > 
> > > > So, Vitor, can you share your changes? Can you tell me what you had to
> > > > change to make it work? Also, which patch version is this based on?  
> > > 
> > > I'm closing a task and after that I will prepare the RFC.
> > 
> > Okay, can we have an estimate? Are we talking about days or weeks?
> 
> I will prioritize it for next week.
> 

What is the status of that?

> > 
> > > 
> > > I based in all version and tried to pass everything to master.c file.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what that means, but okay.
> > 
> > > Right now my challenge it to trigger mastership request when a device 
> > > driver want to access to the bus but I believe we can discuss that after.
> > 
> > That's kind of a basic feature when talking about mastership handover,
> > but sure, we can discuss it after your RFC has been posted.
> 
> I need to test if the time that device.c request the mastership and the 
> controller has effectively the ownership of the bus is short enough to 
> call i3c_dev_do_priv_xfers_locked(dev->desc, xfers, nxfers) before of all 
> housekeeping of bus takeover.
> 
> > 
> > Note that I'm not super happy to have to go back to square 1 and throw
> > away all of the work done by Przemek, especially since Przemek was the
> > first one to post a patchset and he never really said he didn't
> > want or didn't have time to continue working on this task (not even
> > mentioning the time I spent reviewing those patches...).
> > 
> > If Przemek is fine with this situation I'm okay making an exception,
> > but be aware that it's not how we usually do: the person that posts a
> > patchset first leads the thing (of course, it's even better if there's
> > some kind of coordination before the patch is posted).
> 
> Honestly it looks like I'm competing on this which is not the case.
> I just pointed out my concerns about this adoption because I see several 
> issues on it. The point is, at the end you can pick some parts of my sec 
> master code and integrate in your solution.
> 

Can you point me to the version of the patch your changes are based on?
And also, can you tell me what issues you faced? I would like to check
if they are already adressed in my code.

> As I said previous for I3C spec 1.1 secondary master received a big 
> improvement due the misunderstanding published in 1.0 spec. I don't know 
> any other protocol that implement such kind of feature and for this is 
> from far the most complex feature to implement in SO based systems from 
> i3c spec.
> 
> > 
> > BTW, you mentioned working on a lot of different topics, but most of
> > them were left unfinished (userspace i3cdev interface, I3C slave
> > framework/API, ...).
> 
> The i3cdev does what we discuss during the proposal of i3c subsystem and 
> only expose i3c device without device driver yet I'm not happy with 
> transfer struct.
> For the tools I have for hdr and sdr transfers, for now I didn't feel the 
> need of a tool for ccc (but for testing purposes it would help a lot).
> 
> > Any plans to post RFCs on those aspects anytime
> > soon? I mean, there's plenty of topics to work on, and I'd really prefer
> > that each developer work on a different topic instead of duplicating the
> > effort...
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Boris
> 
> Best regards,
> Vitor Soares
> 
> 

-- 
-- 
Regards,
Przemyslaw Gaj

_______________________________________________
linux-i3c mailing list
linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-i3c