[Xenomai-core] Re: [Xenomai-help] Draft for a RTDM I2C driver

[Xenomai-core] Re: [Xenomai-help] Draft for a RTDM I2C driver

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1350 bytes --]

Dirk Eibach wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have spent some time designing a RTDM I2C driver based on the linux
> i2c driver. It's stripped down in some aspects but porting existing
> clients and adapters should be fairly easy.
> For this draft I have ported the IBM PPC4xx driver, because that is what
> I have here for testing.
> 
> It's my first RTDM project, so I hope I haven't messed things up too much.
> 
> Any comments welcome!
> 

Great! I almost forgot this topic as it was quiet after my reply, but
now we even have code to discuss.

Before I start looking into implementation details, it would be nice if
you could sketch the basic idea of your API proposal and the typical use
cases. Code is more explicit, I know, but it's also a bit more tricky to
grab an overview from it. Do you also have some simple demo to show how
one should use your interface?

What I grabbed so far:
 - for each I2C interface, a RTDM device is registered
 - rti2c-api.h is ought to become the RTDM I2C device profile
 - we have read/write and a bunch of IOCTLs as API

What I didn't grabbed:
 - is transfer synchronous or asynchronous?
 - can applications access an adapter concurrently?
 - what are the major differences to the Linux model?

I'm looking forward to see some nice generic RTI2C in Xenomai soon(er or
later)!

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

[Xenomai-core] Re: [Xenomai-help] Draft for a RTDM I2C driver

[Dirk Eibach]

jan.kiszka@domain.hid wrote:
> Dirk Eibach wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have spent some time designing a RTDM I2C driver based on the linux
>> i2c driver. It's stripped down in some aspects but porting existing
>> clients and adapters should be fairly easy.
>> For this draft I have ported the IBM PPC4xx driver, because that is what
>> I have here for testing.
>>
>> It's my first RTDM project, so I hope I haven't messed things up too much.
>>
>> Any comments welcome!
>>
> 
> Great! I almost forgot this topic as it was quiet after my reply, but
> now we even have code to discuss.

It took some time for me to understand the RTDM concepts and to 
understand what the i2c linux driver is doing.

> Before I start looking into implementation details, it would be nice if
> you could sketch the basic idea of your API proposal and the typical use
> cases. Code is more explicit, I know, but it's also a bit more tricky to
> grab an overview from it. Do you also have some simple demo to show how
> one should use your interface?

> What I grabbed so far:
>  - for each I2C interface, a RTDM device is registered
>  - rti2c-api.h is ought to become the RTDM I2C device profile
>  - we have read/write and a bunch of IOCTLs as API

Here is a typical usecase:

   int fd;

   //open a instance of the RTDM device
   fd = rt_dev_open( "rti2cppc4xx", 0);

   // set the address of the device on the bus
   rt_dev_ioctl(fd, RTI2C_SLAVE, addr);

   // write a value to register of the addressed device
   rti2c_smbus_write_byte_data(fd, register, value);

   rt_dev_close(fd);


Many common i2c usecases are packed in inline functions in rti2c-api.h 
so you don't need to fiddle with IOCTLs that much.

> What I didn't grabbed:
>  - is transfer synchronous or asynchronous?
>  - can applications access an adapter concurrently?
>  - what are the major differences to the Linux model?

The interface is synchronous (just like its linux pendant). Applications 
can access an adapter concurrently, access is serialized in 
rti2-core.c/rti2c_smbus_xfer by a (per adapter) mutex.

The linux implementation has not only the device driver interface but 
also a kernel-api. There is a i2c_driver concept, that enables you to 
provide device drivers for i2c (client-)devices as kernel modules. I 
left out this concept because I thought it does not fit the RTDM concept.
Further I left out all the sysfs stuff.

> I'm looking forward to see some nice generic RTI2C in Xenomai soon(er or
> later)!

Me too :)

> Jan

Dirk

[Xenomai-core] Re: [Xenomai-help] Draft for a RTDM I2C driver

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5804 bytes --]

Dirk Eibach wrote:
> jan.kiszka@domain.hid wrote:
>> Dirk Eibach wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have spent some time designing a RTDM I2C driver based on the linux
>>> i2c driver. It's stripped down in some aspects but porting existing
>>> clients and adapters should be fairly easy.
>>> For this draft I have ported the IBM PPC4xx driver, because that is what
>>> I have here for testing.
>>>
>>> It's my first RTDM project, so I hope I haven't messed things up too
>>> much.
>>>
>>> Any comments welcome!
>>>
>>
>> Great! I almost forgot this topic as it was quiet after my reply, but
>> now we even have code to discuss.
> 
> It took some time for me to understand the RTDM concepts and to
> understand what the i2c linux driver is doing.
> 
>> Before I start looking into implementation details, it would be nice if
>> you could sketch the basic idea of your API proposal and the typical use
>> cases. Code is more explicit, I know, but it's also a bit more tricky to
>> grab an overview from it. Do you also have some simple demo to show how
>> one should use your interface?
> 
>> What I grabbed so far:
>>  - for each I2C interface, a RTDM device is registered
>>  - rti2c-api.h is ought to become the RTDM I2C device profile
>>  - we have read/write and a bunch of IOCTLs as API
> 
> Here is a typical usecase:
> 
>   int fd;
> 
>   //open a instance of the RTDM device
>   fd = rt_dev_open( "rti2cppc4xx", 0);

I think we should define a more generic naming scheme here to make
application code easier portable. I guess there can alos be more than
one I2C controller on some system, right?

> 
>   // set the address of the device on the bus
>   rt_dev_ioctl(fd, RTI2C_SLAVE, addr);

Is the typical use case to not change the slave address that often,
rather to use separate device instances for accessing different slaves?
I'm wondering if a combined address+request command may make sense.
Maybe even a socket-based protocol device would match as well, maybe
even better... (needs more thinking, I guess)

Does Linux expose a similar API via some character devices? Keeping the
distance to Linux low might be a reason to not go the socket path.

> 
>   // write a value to register of the addressed device
>   rti2c_smbus_write_byte_data(fd, register, value);
> 
>   rt_dev_close(fd);
> 
> 
> Many common i2c usecases are packed in inline functions in rti2c-api.h
> so you don't need to fiddle with IOCTLs that much.

Looks nice. A few of those inlines should become library functions,
though. But that's something to optimise later.

> 
>> What I didn't grabbed:
>>  - is transfer synchronous or asynchronous?
>>  - can applications access an adapter concurrently?
>>  - what are the major differences to the Linux model?
> 
> The interface is synchronous (just like its linux pendant). Applications
> can access an adapter concurrently, access is serialized in
> rti2-core.c/rti2c_smbus_xfer by a (per adapter) mutex.

So the typical path looks like this:
 1. [depending on data size: allocate temporary buffer]
 2. acquire interface mutex
 3. issue request
 4. pend on reply
hardware is working...
 5. completion IRQ arrives and wakes up pending task
 6. collect request result
 7. release mutex
 8. [release buffer]

A few thoughts on this:

 - What are typical delays between 4. and 5.? Does it makes sense for
   short requests to busy-wait (to avoid the scheduler/IRQ overhead)?
   I've seen that there is some polling path included in the code, but
   that would break as it calls into Linux.

 - Will a request always return? Or does it make sense to establish an
   (optional) timeout mechanism here?

 - Buffer allocation for short requests may also happen on the stack, I
   think.

 - Buffer allocation for large requests may (optionally) happen
   ahead-of-time via some special IOCTL. This would make a device
   independent of the current system heap usage/fragmentation.

 - During concurrent use, the latency of an user is defined by its
   priority, of course, and the number and lengths of potentially issued
   request of some lower priority user, right? Is there a way one could
   intercept a pending request list? Or is this list handled in toto to
   the hardware? Melts down to "how to manage the bandwidth according to
   the user's priority".

> 
> The linux implementation has not only the device driver interface but
> also a kernel-api. There is a i2c_driver concept, that enables you to
> provide device drivers for i2c (client-)devices as kernel modules. I
> left out this concept because I thought it does not fit the RTDM concept.

Actually, this fits very will in the RTDM concept in so far that RTDM
can provide exactly the same API you defined for user-space also in
kernel space. It just takes to handle the case "user_info == NULL" where
no address checks and copy_to/froms are needed. Check other RTDM drivers
on this.

Moreover, in-kernel drivers could make use of direct invocations of
RTI2C services, check this service

http://www.xenomai.org/documentation/trunk/html/api/group__interdrv.html#g99e8509f4c8b404f0d5795b575d4c9cb

Once you locked the context, you can call into the RTDM device's
handlers directly with the demux'ing of your current file descriptor.

> Further I left out all the sysfs stuff.

That's ok.

> 
>> I'm looking forward to see some nice generic RTI2C in Xenomai soon(er or
>> later)!
> 
> Me too :)

My current optimistic feeling is that this could very well become stuff
for 2.4. Takes to stabilise the API (even if not all parts are
implemented then), document it like other RTDM profiles (e.g. CAN), and
iron the implementation. Sounds like a plan, doesn't it? :)

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

[Xenomai-core] Re: [Xenomai-help] Draft for a RTDM I2C driver

[Dirk Eibach]

jan.kiszka@domain.hid wrote:
> Dirk Eibach wrote:
>> jan.kiszka@domain.hid wrote:
>>> Dirk Eibach wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have spent some time designing a RTDM I2C driver based on the linux
>>>> i2c driver. It's stripped down in some aspects but porting existing
>>>> clients and adapters should be fairly easy.
>>>> For this draft I have ported the IBM PPC4xx driver, because that is what
>>>> I have here for testing.
>>>>
>>>> It's my first RTDM project, so I hope I haven't messed things up too
>>>> much.
>>>>
>>>> Any comments welcome!
>>>>
>>> Great! I almost forgot this topic as it was quiet after my reply, but
>>> now we even have code to discuss.
>> It took some time for me to understand the RTDM concepts and to
>> understand what the i2c linux driver is doing.
>>
>>> Before I start looking into implementation details, it would be nice if
>>> you could sketch the basic idea of your API proposal and the typical use
>>> cases. Code is more explicit, I know, but it's also a bit more tricky to
>>> grab an overview from it. Do you also have some simple demo to show how
>>> one should use your interface?
>>> What I grabbed so far:
>>>  - for each I2C interface, a RTDM device is registered
>>>  - rti2c-api.h is ought to become the RTDM I2C device profile
>>>  - we have read/write and a bunch of IOCTLs as API
>> Here is a typical usecase:
>>
>>   int fd;
>>
>>   //open a instance of the RTDM device
>>   fd = rt_dev_open( "rti2cppc4xx", 0);
> 
> I think we should define a more generic naming scheme here to make
> application code easier portable. I guess there can alos be more than
> one I2C controller on some system, right?

At the moment the devicename is defined by the caller of 
rti2c_adapter_register().
When the device is registered a number is assigned to the adapter. Maybe 
the devicename could be made up of some fixed text like "rti2c" followed 
by the number that is assigned to the adapter.

>>   // set the address of the device on the bus
>>   rt_dev_ioctl(fd, RTI2C_SLAVE, addr);
> 
> Is the typical use case to not change the slave address that often,
> rather to use separate device instances for accessing different slaves?
> I'm wondering if a combined address+request command may make sense.
> Maybe even a socket-based protocol device would match as well, maybe
> even better... (needs more thinking, I guess)
> 
> Does Linux expose a similar API via some character devices? Keeping the
> distance to Linux low might be a reason to not go the socket path.

The linux API is exactly the same. I had the same thoughts concerning 
combined commands (address+request) but maybe we could offer such 
commands as wrappers.

>>   // write a value to register of the addressed device
>>   rti2c_smbus_write_byte_data(fd, register, value);
>>
>>   rt_dev_close(fd);
>>
>>
>> Many common i2c usecases are packed in inline functions in rti2c-api.h
>> so you don't need to fiddle with IOCTLs that much.
> 
> Looks nice. A few of those inlines should become library functions,
> though. But that's something to optimise later.

ACK

>>> What I didn't grabbed:
>>>  - is transfer synchronous or asynchronous?
>>>  - can applications access an adapter concurrently?
>>>  - what are the major differences to the Linux model?
>> The interface is synchronous (just like its linux pendant). Applications
>> can access an adapter concurrently, access is serialized in
>> rti2-core.c/rti2c_smbus_xfer by a (per adapter) mutex.
> 
> So the typical path looks like this:
>  1. [depending on data size: allocate temporary buffer]
>  2. acquire interface mutex
>  3. issue request
>  4. pend on reply
> hardware is working...
>  5. completion IRQ arrives and wakes up pending task
>  6. collect request result
>  7. release mutex
>  8. [release buffer]
> 
> A few thoughts on this:
> 
>  - What are typical delays between 4. and 5.? Does it makes sense for
>    short requests to busy-wait (to avoid the scheduler/IRQ overhead)?
>    I've seen that there is some polling path included in the code, but
>    that would break as it calls into Linux.

Oops. I missed that schedule() call. Regarding typical delays I have to 
admit that I have not measured yet, but I would estimate about 500 us 
for the above usecase. What would you estimate the scheduler/IRQ overhead?

>  - Will a request always return? Or does it make sense to establish an
>    (optional) timeout mechanism here?

A timeout mechanism is already there: rti2c_ppc4xx_wait_for_tc() uses 
rtdm_event_timedwait to wait for the interrupt to complete. Certainly 
that is left to the implementation of the adapter.

>  - Buffer allocation for short requests may also happen on the stack, I
>    think.

That is already done. Have a look at the RTI2C_SMBUS IOCTL. Do you think 
it should also be possible to do this in the read/write calls denpending 
on the requested size?

>  - Buffer allocation for large requests may (optionally) happen
>    ahead-of-time via some special IOCTL. This would make a device
>    independent of the current system heap usage/fragmentation.
> 
>  - During concurrent use, the latency of an user is defined by its
>    priority, of course, and the number and lengths of potentially issued
>    request of some lower priority user, right? Is there a way one could
>    intercept a pending request list? Or is this list handled in toto to
>    the hardware? Melts down to "how to manage the bandwidth according to
>    the user's priority".

Concurrent use means that single RTI2C requests are called from 
different tasks. Each request is atomic (and usually quite small). So 
when a low-pri thread does a lot of requests a high-pri thread can get 
inbetween anytime. I think this way bandwidth is already managed properly.

>> The linux implementation has not only the device driver interface but
>> also a kernel-api. There is a i2c_driver concept, that enables you to
>> provide device drivers for i2c (client-)devices as kernel modules. I
>> left out this concept because I thought it does not fit the RTDM concept.
> 
> Actually, this fits very will in the RTDM concept in so far that RTDM
> can provide exactly the same API you defined for user-space also in
> kernel space. It just takes to handle the case "user_info == NULL" where
> no address checks and copy_to/froms are needed. Check other RTDM drivers
> on this.

Got it.

> Moreover, in-kernel drivers could make use of direct invocations of
> RTI2C services, check this service
> 
> http://www.xenomai.org/documentation/trunk/html/api/group__interdrv.html#g99e8509f4c8b404f0d5795b575d4c9cb
> 
> Once you locked the context, you can call into the RTDM device's
> handlers directly with the demux'ing of your current file descriptor.

Are there any examples for this?

>> Further I left out all the sysfs stuff.
> 
> That's ok.
> 
>>> I'm looking forward to see some nice generic RTI2C in Xenomai soon(er or
>>> later)!
>> Me too :)
> 
> My current optimistic feeling is that this could very well become stuff
> for 2.4. Takes to stabilise the API (even if not all parts are
> implemented then), document it like other RTDM profiles (e.g. CAN), and
> iron the implementation. Sounds like a plan, doesn't it? :)

It does.

> Jan

Dirk

[Xenomai-core] Re: [Xenomai-help] Draft for a RTDM I2C driver

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5264 bytes --]

Dirk Eibach wrote:
>>>
>>>   //open a instance of the RTDM device
>>>   fd = rt_dev_open( "rti2cppc4xx", 0);
>>
>> I think we should define a more generic naming scheme here to make
>> application code easier portable. I guess there can alos be more than
>> one I2C controller on some system, right?
> 
> At the moment the devicename is defined by the caller of
> rti2c_adapter_register().
> When the device is registered a number is assigned to the adapter. Maybe
> the devicename could be made up of some fixed text like "rti2c" followed
> by the number that is assigned to the adapter.

That was the idea behind it. Given the RTI2C is generic (and it looks
like it is), you can than write a generic application, opening "rti2c0"
more or less blindly without knowing the adapter behind it.

> 
>>>   // set the address of the device on the bus
>>>   rt_dev_ioctl(fd, RTI2C_SLAVE, addr);
>>
>> Is the typical use case to not change the slave address that often,
>> rather to use separate device instances for accessing different slaves?
>> I'm wondering if a combined address+request command may make sense.
>> Maybe even a socket-based protocol device would match as well, maybe
>> even better... (needs more thinking, I guess)
>>
>> Does Linux expose a similar API via some character devices? Keeping the
>> distance to Linux low might be a reason to not go the socket path.
> 
> The linux API is exactly the same. I had the same thoughts concerning
> combined commands (address+request) but maybe we could offer such
> commands as wrappers.

My concern was rather about performance than convenience. If a usage
pattern consists of almost as many address-set driver invocations as
actual requests, then you would benefit quite a lot from a combined
service call. But the question is, given that Linux uses the same API,
if that is really an expected use case and worth an optimisation effort.

...
>> A few thoughts on this:
>>
>>  - What are typical delays between 4. and 5.? Does it makes sense for
>>    short requests to busy-wait (to avoid the scheduler/IRQ overhead)?
>>    I've seen that there is some polling path included in the code, but
>>    that would break as it calls into Linux.
> 
> Oops. I missed that schedule() call. Regarding typical delays I have to
> admit that I have not measured yet, but I would estimate about 500 us
> for the above usecase. What would you estimate the scheduler/IRQ overhead?

Oh, 500 us is far more than you should see as "suspend-me +
switch-to-someone-else + raise-irq-and-switch-back-to-me" overhead even
on low-end PPC. Busy-waiting is something for a few microseconds.

> 
>>  - Will a request always return? Or does it make sense to establish an
>>    (optional) timeout mechanism here?
> 
> A timeout mechanism is already there: rti2c_ppc4xx_wait_for_tc() uses
> rtdm_event_timedwait to wait for the interrupt to complete. Certainly
> that is left to the implementation of the adapter.

True, I missed this.

> 
>>  - Buffer allocation for short requests may also happen on the stack, I
>>    think.
> 
> That is already done. Have a look at the RTI2C_SMBUS IOCTL. Do you think
> it should also be possible to do this in the read/write calls denpending
> on the requested size?

I currently see allocations in RTI2C_RDWR (BTW, there is a forgotten
kmalloc) and in read/write. As I don't know the typical sizes of those
requests, I cannot judge on this. So take it as some food to think about.

In contrast, the rtdm_malloc on adapter registration is overkill - this
will not happen in RT context, will it?

> 
>>  - Buffer allocation for large requests may (optionally) happen
>>    ahead-of-time via some special IOCTL. This would make a device
>>    independent of the current system heap usage/fragmentation.
>>
>>  - During concurrent use, the latency of an user is defined by its
>>    priority, of course, and the number and lengths of potentially issued
>>    request of some lower priority user, right? Is there a way one could
>>    intercept a pending request list? Or is this list handled in toto to
>>    the hardware? Melts down to "how to manage the bandwidth according to
>>    the user's priority".
> 
> Concurrent use means that single RTI2C requests are called from
> different tasks. Each request is atomic (and usually quite small). So
> when a low-pri thread does a lot of requests a high-pri thread can get
> inbetween anytime. I think this way bandwidth is already managed properly.

So there is no interface where you can submit several requests as an
atomic chunk? Then I'm fine with what we have.

...
>> Moreover, in-kernel drivers could make use of direct invocations of
>> RTI2C services, check this service
>>
>> http://www.xenomai.org/documentation/trunk/html/api/group__interdrv.html#g99e8509f4c8b404f0d5795b575d4c9cb
>>
>>
>> Once you locked the context, you can call into the RTDM device's
>> handlers directly with the demux'ing of your current file descriptor.
> 
> Are there any examples for this?

Hopelessly outdated, but the principle should be visible:

http://www.rts.uni-hannover.de/rtnet/lxr/source/examples/broken/netshm/netshm.c?v=SVN

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

[Xenomai-core] Re: [Xenomai-help] Draft for a RTDM I2C driver

[Dirk Eibach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4695 bytes --]

>> At the moment the devicename is defined by the caller of
>> rti2c_adapter_register().
>> When the device is registered a number is assigned to the adapter. Maybe
>> the devicename could be made up of some fixed text like "rti2c" followed
>> by the number that is assigned to the adapter.
> 
> That was the idea behind it. Given the RTI2C is generic (and it looks
> like it is), you can than write a generic application, opening "rti2c0"
> more or less blindly without knowing the adapter behind it.

Fixed.

>>>>   // set the address of the device on the bus
>>>>   rt_dev_ioctl(fd, RTI2C_SLAVE, addr);
>>> Is the typical use case to not change the slave address that often,
>>> rather to use separate device instances for accessing different slaves?
>>> I'm wondering if a combined address+request command may make sense.
>>> Maybe even a socket-based protocol device would match as well, maybe
>>> even better... (needs more thinking, I guess)
>>>
>>> Does Linux expose a similar API via some character devices? Keeping the
>>> distance to Linux low might be a reason to not go the socket path.
>> The linux API is exactly the same. I had the same thoughts concerning
>> combined commands (address+request) but maybe we could offer such
>> commands as wrappers.
> 
> My concern was rather about performance than convenience. If a usage
> pattern consists of almost as many address-set driver invocations as
> actual requests, then you would benefit quite a lot from a combined
> service call. But the question is, given that Linux uses the same API,
> if that is really an expected use case and worth an optimisation effort.

For the moment I'll keep it the way it is.

> ...
>>> A few thoughts on this:
>>>
>>>  - What are typical delays between 4. and 5.? Does it makes sense for
>>>    short requests to busy-wait (to avoid the scheduler/IRQ overhead)?
>>>    I've seen that there is some polling path included in the code, but
>>>    that would break as it calls into Linux.
>> Oops. I missed that schedule() call. Regarding typical delays I have to
>> admit that I have not measured yet, but I would estimate about 500 us
>> for the above usecase. What would you estimate the scheduler/IRQ overhead?
> 
> Oh, 500 us is far more than you should see as "suspend-me +
> switch-to-someone-else + raise-irq-and-switch-back-to-me" overhead even
> on low-end PPC. Busy-waiting is something for a few microseconds.

Ah, all right, so I leave this as is too.

>>>  - Will a request always return? Or does it make sense to establish an
>>>    (optional) timeout mechanism here?
>> A timeout mechanism is already there: rti2c_ppc4xx_wait_for_tc() uses
>> rtdm_event_timedwait to wait for the interrupt to complete. Certainly
>> that is left to the implementation of the adapter.
> 
> True, I missed this.
> 
>>>  - Buffer allocation for short requests may also happen on the stack, I
>>>    think.
>> That is already done. Have a look at the RTI2C_SMBUS IOCTL. Do you think
>> it should also be possible to do this in the read/write calls denpending
>> on the requested size?
> 
> I currently see allocations in RTI2C_RDWR (BTW, there is a forgotten
> kmalloc) and in read/write. As I don't know the typical sizes of those
> requests, I cannot judge on this. So take it as some food to think about.
> 
> In contrast, the rtdm_malloc on adapter registration is overkill - this
> will not happen in RT context, will it?

Fixed. Still not sure what to do about the memory allocations in the
other places.

>>>  - Buffer allocation for large requests may (optionally) happen
>>>    ahead-of-time via some special IOCTL. This would make a device
>>>    independent of the current system heap usage/fragmentation.
>>>
>>>  - During concurrent use, the latency of an user is defined by its
>>>    priority, of course, and the number and lengths of potentially issued
>>>    request of some lower priority user, right? Is there a way one could
>>>    intercept a pending request list? Or is this list handled in toto to
>>>    the hardware? Melts down to "how to manage the bandwidth according to
>>>    the user's priority".
>> Concurrent use means that single RTI2C requests are called from
>> different tasks. Each request is atomic (and usually quite small). So
>> when a low-pri thread does a lot of requests a high-pri thread can get
>> inbetween anytime. I think this way bandwidth is already managed properly.
> 
> So there is no interface where you can submit several requests as an
> atomic chunk? Then I'm fine with what we have.

As far as I can see there is no atomic chunk support.

..

I attached the changes as a patch.
I'll have a closer look at documentation and api next week.

Dirk



[-- Attachment #2: rti2c.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 3663 bytes --]

Index: busses/rti2c-ppc4xx.c
===================================================================
--- busses/rti2c-ppc4xx.c	(Revision 5)
+++ busses/rti2c-ppc4xx.c	(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@
 module_param(rti2c_ppc4xx_force_fast, bool, 0);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(rti2c_ppc4xx_fast_poll, "Force fast mode (400 kHz)");
 
-#define DBG_LEVEL 3
+#define DBG_LEVEL 0
 
 #ifdef DBG
 #undef DBG
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@
 			rti2c_ppc4xx_dev_reset(dev);
 			return;
 		}
-		schedule();
+		rtdm_task_sleep(1);
 	}
 
 	/* Just to clear errors */
@@ -764,7 +764,7 @@
 	adap->timeout = 1;
 	adap->retries = 1;
 	
-	ret = rti2c_adapter_register(adap, "rti2cppc4xx");
+	ret = rti2c_adapter_register(adap);
 	rtdm_printk("ibm-iic%d: using %s mode\n", dev->idx,
 		dev->fast_mode ? "fast (400 kHz)" : "standard (100 kHz)");
 
Index: rti2c.h
===================================================================
--- rti2c.h	(Revision 5)
+++ rti2c.h	(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -100,8 +100,7 @@
 /* Adapter registration */
 struct rti2c_adapter *rti2c_adapter_alloc(void);
 void rti2c_adapter_free(struct rti2c_adapter *);
-int rti2c_adapter_register(struct rti2c_adapter *adapter, 
-	const char* rtdm_device_name);
+int rti2c_adapter_register(struct rti2c_adapter *adapter);
 int rti2c_adapter_unregister(struct rti2c_adapter *adapter);
 
 /* Return the functionality mask */
Index: rti2c-core.c
===================================================================
--- rti2c-core.c	(Revision 5)
+++ rti2c-core.c	(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -26,6 +26,8 @@
  */
 
 #include "rti2c.h"
+#include <asm/io.h>
+#include <linux/slab.h>
 
 #define RTI2C_MAX_ADAPTERS 5
 
@@ -43,16 +45,12 @@
 {
 	struct rti2c_adapter *adapter;
 	
-	adapter = (struct rti2c_adapter *)rtdm_malloc(sizeof(*adapter));
+	adapter = kzalloc(sizeof(*adapter), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!adapter) {
 		rtdm_printk("rti2c-core: cannot allocate rti2c_adapter\n");
 		return NULL;
 	}
-	memset(adapter, 0, sizeof(*adapter));
 	memcpy(&adapter->dev, &rti2c_device, sizeof(adapter->dev));
-	rtdm_printk("adapter->dev.proc_name = %s,"
-		" rti2c_device.proc_name = %s\n", 
-		adapter->dev.proc_name, rti2c_device.proc_name);
 	rtdm_mutex_init(&adapter->bus_lock);
 	
 	return adapter;
@@ -61,11 +59,10 @@
 void rti2c_adapter_free(struct rti2c_adapter *adapter)
 {
 	rtdm_mutex_destroy(&adapter->bus_lock);
-	rtdm_free(adapter);
+	kfree(adapter);
 }
 
-int rti2c_adapter_register(struct rti2c_adapter *adapter, 
-	const char* rtdm_device_name)
+int rti2c_adapter_register(struct rti2c_adapter *adapter)
 {
 	unsigned int i;
 	int n = -1;
@@ -76,6 +73,7 @@
 	for (i = 0; i < RTI2C_MAX_ADAPTERS; i++) {
 		if (rti2c_adapters[i] == NULL) {
 			n = i;
+			break;
 		}
 	}
 	if (n < 0) {
@@ -85,8 +83,8 @@
 
 	rtdm_mutex_unlock(&rti2c_mut_adapters);
 	
-	memcpy(adapter->dev.device_name, rtdm_device_name, 
-		sizeof(adapter->dev.device_name));
+        snprintf(adapter->dev.device_name, sizeof(adapter->dev.device_name),
+		"rti2c%d", n);
 	adapter->dev.proc_name = adapter->dev.device_name;
 	adapter->dev.device_id = n;
 	
@@ -94,8 +92,10 @@
 	if (ret) {
 		rtdm_printk("rti2c-core: cannot register rtdm-device %s\n",
 			adapter->dev.device_name);
+	} else {
+		rtdm_printk("rti2c-core: adapter %s registered\n",
+			adapter->dev.device_name);
 	}
-	
 	return ret;
 }
 
@@ -632,7 +632,7 @@
 				break;
 			}
 			data_ptrs[i] = (u8 __user *)rdwr_pa[i].buf;
-			rdwr_pa[i].buf = kmalloc(rdwr_pa[i].len, GFP_KERNEL);
+			rdwr_pa[i].buf = rtdm_malloc(rdwr_pa[i].len);
 			if(rdwr_pa[i].buf == NULL) {
 				res = -ENOMEM;
 				break;