public inbox for linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>,
	"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux@roeck-us.net
Subject: Re: RFI: I2c muxes I2C_MUX_LOCKED and interrupt support
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:59:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2e865d52-34f0-1f98-cbfe-9513ff7610a3@electromag.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5790712F.2050300@axentia.se>

On 21/07/2016 14:52, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> On 2016-07-21 05:20, Phil Reid wrote:
>> G'day Peter,
>>
>> I'm looking into modifying the i2c-mux-pca954x driver to add support for
>> the pca_9543 interrupt mux function.
>>
>> So the first thing I need to add is a reg read function.
>> However based on the changes to the i2c mux code in the 4.6 series the
>> locking work around shouldn't be needed now if the mux is allocated with
>> I2C_MUX_LOCKED. Currently this driver is not doing this.
>> Also the same with the similar i2c-mux-pca9541 driver which does implement read.
>>
>> So my question is should I change the driver to use I2C_MUX_LOCKED
>> or implement the read operation the same as the i2c-mux-pca9541?
>
> Good question. I didn't dare changing the pca9541/pca954x drivers to
> be mux locked. Maybe I am too conservative?
>
> The issue is that if you have a multi-level hierarchy of muxes, the rules
> are more relaxed for mux locked muxed compared to adapter locked muxes.
>
> I.e.
>              mux3
>             /
>         mux1
>        /    \
>    root      mux4
>        \
>         mux2
>
> accesses to devices on e.g. mux3 and mux2 may interleave if all muxes are
> mux-locked, that will never happen for adapter-locked muxes.
>
> Building complex hierarchies feels more likely with pca954x that with the
> other muxing options. But I don't know that, and maybe none exist at all?
>
> Anyway, the safe option is to do it like in pca9541...
>
G'day Peter

Thanks for the explanation.

However I've thought about this a bit more as I've started implementation.
The irq status reading probably doesn't need to got thru the lock work around
as they won't be getting called in the mux select / release functions.

Data read will occur on a threaded interrupt request. Which would be a similar
context to the drivers resume function which directly calls i2c_smbus_write_byte.

Is my thinking right here?


-- 
Regards
Phil Reid

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-21  9:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-21  3:20 RFI: I2c muxes I2C_MUX_LOCKED and interrupt support Phil Reid
2016-07-21  6:52 ` Peter Rosin
2016-07-21  9:59   ` Phil Reid [this message]
2016-07-25 10:01     ` Peter Rosin

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=2e865d52-34f0-1f98-cbfe-9513ff7610a3@electromag.com.au \
    --to=preid@electromag.com.au \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=peda@axentia.se \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox