From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/7] i2c: Add FSI-attached I2C master algorithm Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 09:33:49 +1000 Message-ID: <5683dded80ecabef532d2e285e5fc98e29f59510.camel@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1527714464-8642-1-git-send-email-eajames@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <58c1059a91b93a490a7fc8bda2112e67e6513840.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Eddie James , linux-i2c , Linux Kernel Mailing List , devicetree , Wolfram Sang , Rob Herring , Joel Stanley , Mark Rutland , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Randy Dunlap List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 09:29 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > If you have specific issues with how this is done, please express them > > clearly. It's quite possible that there's some better way to do what > > Eddie is doing here, but without *construtive* feedback this is > > pointless. > > It feels like you duplicate approach which is done in OF generic case. > That is my concern. Though, if Wolfram is telling that is OK, I have > no objections. THe OF generic case is about discovering slaves underneath a port, not ports inside of a mulit-port master. I am not aware of a generic mechanism for the latter. We *could* make the ports sub-devices but it gets messy then to arbitrate the communication and deal with the common part. I've seen (and written) multi-port masters in the past that use a similar approach to what Eddie's doing and it works fine. > > I'm disappointed here because we have an example of somebody rather new > > producing what is overall pretty damn good code, > > That is true. His code much better than many I have seen before Thanks. Also thanks for taking the time to review. > > despite a few corner > > issues, and being (again) treated like crap. > > Sorry for that, life is harsh. > > > This isn't the right way to operate, and I believe this has been made > > clear many times before. > > Yes. Cheers, Ben.