From: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
To: Phil Reid <preid@electromag.com.au>,
"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 08:52:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5790712F.2050300@axentia.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ea56ba2-ba2f-88f8-10f2-daee3f9ebdff@electromag.com.au>
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...
Cheers,
Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-21 7:26 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 [this message]
2016-07-21 9:59 ` Phil Reid
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=5790712F.2050300@axentia.se \
--to=peda@axentia.se \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=preid@electromag.com.au \
/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