Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: Add support for NXP PCA984x family.

Adrian Fiergolski
2017-12-12T17:14:40Z

On 12.12.2017 at 16:25, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-12-12 13:06, Adrian Fiergolski wrote:
>> On 11.12.2017 at 20:14, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> a newer PCA984x family of the I2C switches and multiplexers from NXP.
>>>> In probe function, the patch supports device ID function, introduced in the
>>>> new family, and checks it against configuration provided by the
>>>> devicetree. Moreover, it also performs software reset which is now
>>>> available for the new devices.
>>>> The reset of the code remains common with the legacy PCA954x devices.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Fiergolski <adrian.fiergolski@cern.ch>
>>>> ---
>>>> Apply Peter's and Rodolfo's comments.
>>>> Add missing part in pca984x_family_probe which checks deviceID.
>>>>
>>>> Peter addressing your main comments:
>>>>
>>>> Quoting the PCA9848 manual: "The Software Reset Call allows all the devices in
>>>> the I2C-bus to be reset to the power-up state value through a specific formatted
>>>> I2C-bus command. To be performed correctly, it implies that the I2C-bus is
>>>> functional and that there is no device hanging the bus."
>>>> This call should reset the multiplexer and all devices which are below it in the
>>>> I2C address space tree to the default state.
>>> Yes, I read all that in the datasheet, but why do *you* need it? Because
>>> it is wrong to do it in this driver. It is doubly wrong to do it
>>> unconditionally. I was asking so that I could help you find a solution
>>> for your problem, because it is simply not acceptable to add a bus-wide
>>> reset to a random driver.
>> In a normal run scenario, I don't need it. I can imagine it may be a
>> problem, if the module
>> is suddenly unloaded and loaded: the mux remains set to some not default
>> bus and
>> the module is not aware of it. However, I agree then the bus could be
>> reset somewhere
>> at higher level.
> Think about what happens if you have more than one chip on some i2c bus
> that uses this reset mechanism. First you instantiate one of the drivers
> and both chips are reset. Then you carry on with careful configuration
> of that first chip. Then you instantiate the driver for the other chip
> and all you careful configuration of the first chip is lost as it is
> reset a second time. So, you just can't reset everything on the bus in
> any random driver, that has to be done on some other level.
That's all true. However, we are discussing an I2C mux/switch which is a
root
of an I2C sub-tree. It is initialized first, so the SOFTWARE_RESET command
would reset only mux/switch and all its nodes. The command would be followed
by the configuration of all its nodes, which anyway can't be performed
earlier.
>
>>>> The manufacturer ID and device ID checks in pca984x_family_probe ensures that
>>>> we actually communicate with a device we intended to (according to the
>>>> devicetree) and that communication with this device works properly (this device
>>>> ID and manufacturer ID can be seen as a fixed pattern).
>>> Yes yes yes, but do you actually need it? Because it complicates the driver
>>> for little gain (in my opinion).
>> Well, yes... I want to be sure that the driver is actually able to serve
>> the device which is going
>> to be assigned to it. The best, of course, would be if I2C could
>> enumerate itself (like PCIe), but
>> as it's not a case and we need to rely on devicetree, I understand the
>> driver should do "maximum"
>> to cross-check the static configuration with the actual hardware.
>> Moreover, in case of a configuration problem, one will be able to trace it
>> immediately.
>> By default, the driver performs a dummy access anyway. Since new chips
>> come with those ID
>> registers, I think it's reasonable to do something useful.
> Sure, there are benefits, but is it worth it?
As we perform anyway a dummy access, we suffer anyway I2C bus delay
which will be, in case of PCA984x family, in the same order of magnitude
(1 vs 3 words access). On another hand, one extra call doesn't change
significantly, in my opinion, the code complexity.
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Get device ID */
>>>> + device_id_raw.block[0] = 3; /* read 3 bytes */
>>>> + if (i2c_smbus_xfer(client->adapter, DEVICE_ID_ADDRESS, client->flags,
>>>> + I2C_SMBUS_READ, client->addr << 1,
>>>> + I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA, &device_id_raw)) {
>>>>
>>> Whooa, I managed to miss this last time... Why are you not using the
>>> i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data helper? (and even if you have some good
>>> reason to open-code this, you seem to have some seriously confused
>>> arguments, so if those are indeed correct you need to document what
>>> the hell is going on)
>>>
>> The deviceID access is described in paragraph 6.2.2 of the manual
>> (https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/PCA9846.pdf).
>> The fixed DEVICE_ID_ADDRESS (0x7C) is used as address. The
>> i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data function uses
>> address of a client (client->addr).
> Ahh, ok, I see what's going on. I think this should be a helper
> function in the i2c core that returns the manufacturer, the device id
> and the revision fields, thus eliminating the need to do bit-fiddling
> in every driver that needs this info.
>
> And there should be a common "database" of manufacturers. It would be
> a disservice to everybody to have that info scattered all over the
> place.
So how would we like to proceed? We keep for a time being
an i2c_smbus_xfer call and in parallel start implementation of
a new helper function in I2C core which would substitute this
call in the future?

Cheers,
Adrian