From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Laine Jaakko EXT <ext-jaakko.laine@vaisala.com>
Cc: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@gmail.com>,
"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
"michal.simek@xilinx.com" <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: xiic: Support disabling multi-master in DT
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:41:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200401143254.GA2409@ninjato> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR06MB5185E501349E06428093B62FD4F70@AM0PR06MB5185.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1678 bytes --]
> The multi-master -binding is documented here as boolean and encodes a
> Boolean by either existing or not existing in device tree. It is also
> used in other drivers so I couldn't do much about it missing meaning
> False.
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c.txt
> I originally had a custom device tree entry where the default was for
> multi-master to be enabled before I noticed the pre-existing binding.
>
> Maybe if the multi-master binding was changed from Boolean to for
> example a string property (multi-master = "ON" / multi-master =
> "OFF"), code could still just check the existence with
> "of_property_read_bool()" first, where property missing means "OFF"
> and property existing means "ON"(like before) if there is no text
> associated. Xiic driver would then only disable multimaster, if device
> tree explicitly contains multi-master = "OFF".
>
> This should be able to maintain driver backwards compatibility with
> old device trees, but requires binding documentation change and all
> drivers should likely be updated to also accept the new style of
> multi-master property to be consistent. This is also not as clean as
> the old Boolean property in my opinion.
I agree. I don't want to change the old "multi-master" binding like
above because that would be quite intrusive for other drivers and
confusing when trying to understand the binding.
My best bet is to introduce another binding "single-master" which says
clearly that we are the only bus master on that bus.
Both bindings missing means then "unclear".
I think this matches reality best.
Opinions?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Laine Jaakko EXT <ext-jaakko.laine@vaisala.com>
Cc: "michal.simek@xilinx.com" <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@gmail.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: xiic: Support disabling multi-master in DT
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:41:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200401143254.GA2409@ninjato> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR06MB5185E501349E06428093B62FD4F70@AM0PR06MB5185.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1678 bytes --]
> The multi-master -binding is documented here as boolean and encodes a
> Boolean by either existing or not existing in device tree. It is also
> used in other drivers so I couldn't do much about it missing meaning
> False.
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c.txt
> I originally had a custom device tree entry where the default was for
> multi-master to be enabled before I noticed the pre-existing binding.
>
> Maybe if the multi-master binding was changed from Boolean to for
> example a string property (multi-master = "ON" / multi-master =
> "OFF"), code could still just check the existence with
> "of_property_read_bool()" first, where property missing means "OFF"
> and property existing means "ON"(like before) if there is no text
> associated. Xiic driver would then only disable multimaster, if device
> tree explicitly contains multi-master = "OFF".
>
> This should be able to maintain driver backwards compatibility with
> old device trees, but requires binding documentation change and all
> drivers should likely be updated to also accept the new style of
> multi-master property to be consistent. This is also not as clean as
> the old Boolean property in my opinion.
I agree. I don't want to change the old "multi-master" binding like
above because that would be quite intrusive for other drivers and
confusing when trying to understand the binding.
My best bet is to introduce another binding "single-master" which says
clearly that we are the only bus master on that bus.
Both bindings missing means then "unclear".
I think this matches reality best.
Opinions?
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-01 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-18 13:58 [PATCH] i2c: xiic: Support disabling multi-master in DT Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-02-18 13:58 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-02-24 10:13 ` Michal Simek
2020-02-24 10:13 ` Michal Simek
2020-02-25 14:08 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-02-25 14:08 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-02-25 14:13 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-02-25 14:13 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-02-25 14:27 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-02-25 14:27 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-02-25 14:32 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-02-25 14:32 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-02-25 14:37 ` Michal Simek
2020-02-25 14:37 ` Michal Simek
2020-02-25 14:41 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-02-25 14:41 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-02-25 14:44 ` Michal Simek
2020-02-25 14:44 ` Michal Simek
2020-02-25 14:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-02-25 14:48 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-02-25 14:49 ` Michal Simek
2020-02-25 14:49 ` Michal Simek
2020-03-18 12:20 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2020-03-18 12:20 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2020-03-18 16:49 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-03-18 16:49 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-03-19 9:34 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2020-03-19 9:34 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2020-03-19 10:26 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-03-19 10:26 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-04-16 10:42 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-04-16 10:42 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-04-01 14:41 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2020-04-01 14:41 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-04-02 6:16 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-04-02 6:16 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-04-02 9:28 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-04-02 9:28 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-05-04 12:58 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-05-04 12:58 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-05-27 11:07 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-05-27 11:07 ` Wolfram Sang
2020-05-27 11:27 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
2020-05-27 11:27 ` Laine Jaakko EXT
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200401143254.GA2409@ninjato \
--to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
--cc=ext-jaakko.laine@vaisala.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.simek@xilinx.com \
--cc=shubhrajyoti.datta@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.