From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C36C432C0 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:35:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17BF120740 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:35:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="ZjjmW6eE" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 17BF120740 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-i3c-bounces+linux-i3c=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=lXTxWA8xREIX0AdvCNkc6ZVunaFPHm9eDA8e5OGByV8=; b=ZjjmW6eETRq4eL o/DGyZISKSVTYyMtmJqAdH5edarECSQKMGyM/mYb+k7RDDqL3Tz6YII33CJTn6EM39PPZ27OJw2Un iYQe9gZcbA9YhJPtRY7T6nlEJZf6cUvq1ykJvXuwsqC8GbOggDjkfnKhbUFZXpnTMwiHF8Q4PQPGM +cXHuwscpA+zcL+FxrXabHaHqlpPZZDdHvgdkI5K3nqz+5NYWl+/u3CHHjqe1b5zlTJdBpqCtuYN1 JCFnQHNRvEO/IA6d4ayOSmi0wMQONib8uKOHyLjgkL4nL9LadHga5l5/Lyy+5N5lUf8lK1iXc/HOg eJEIBynNqf+VrpWPYS6Q==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iZCdx-0006Ou-Iv; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:35:01 +0000 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([2a00:1098:0:82:1000:25:2eeb:e3e3]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iZCdt-0006ON-LJ for linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:34:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0a:2c:6930:5cf4:84a1:2763:fe0d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bbrezillon) by bhuna.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD9E328FBE9; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:34:55 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:34:52 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Vitor Soares Subject: Re: I3C Mastership RFC Message-ID: <20191125123452.7c2549dd@collabora.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20191106093315.GA21952@global.cadence.com> <20191110113005.57dcff8e@collabora.com> <20191112084127.6efc6fac@collabora.com> <20191114061011.GA25288@global.cadence.com> <20191114133214.0b6ecc0a@collabora.com> <20191125080220.GA30630@global.cadence.com> Organization: Collabora X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20191125_033457_964105_1F30B105 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 33.42 ) X-BeenThere: linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux I3C List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Przemyslaw Gaj , "linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org" , "bbrezillon@kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-i3c" Errors-To: linux-i3c-bounces+linux-i3c=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:19:44 +0000 Vitor Soares wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I based in all version and tried to pass everything to master.c file. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what that means, but okay. > > > > > > > > > Right now my challenge it to trigger mastership request when a device > > > > > driver want to access to the bus but I believe we can discuss that after. > > > > > > > > That's kind of a basic feature when talking about mastership handover, > > > > but sure, we can discuss it after your RFC has been posted. > > > > > > I need to test if the time that device.c request the mastership and the > > > controller has effectively the ownership of the bus is short enough to > > > call i3c_dev_do_priv_xfers_locked(dev->desc, xfers, nxfers) before of all > > > housekeeping of bus takeover. > > > > > > > > > > > Note that I'm not super happy to have to go back to square 1 and throw > > > > away all of the work done by Przemek, especially since Przemek was the > > > > first one to post a patchset and he never really said he didn't > > > > want or didn't have time to continue working on this task (not even > > > > mentioning the time I spent reviewing those patches...). > > > > > > > > If Przemek is fine with this situation I'm okay making an exception, > > > > but be aware that it's not how we usually do: the person that posts a > > > > patchset first leads the thing (of course, it's even better if there's > > > > some kind of coordination before the patch is posted). > > > > > > Honestly it looks like I'm competing on this which is not the case. > > > I just pointed out my concerns about this adoption because I see several > > > issues on it. The point is, at the end you can pick some parts of my sec > > > master code and integrate in your solution. > > > > > > > Can you point me to the version of the patch your changes are based on? > > And also, can you tell me what issues you faced? I would like to check > > if they are already adressed in my code. > > I used v3 and v4. From v5, I found useful the switch case (request, > deliver, handoff, takeover) in hc side. > > I didn't hardly test how device.c request mastership but I suspect it > won't work properly. When you do i3c_dev_do_priv_xfers_locked() you might > not be the master yet. I'm pretty sure we solved that already (that's what i3c_master_acquire_bus_ownership() calls are supposed to take care of). Can you be a bit more specific? What makes you think the master might not be in control of the bus when i3c_dev_do_priv_xfers_locked() is called? > > > > > > As I said previous for I3C spec 1.1 secondary master received a big > > > improvement due the misunderstanding published in 1.0 spec. I don't know > > > any other protocol that implement such kind of feature and for this is > > > from far the most complex feature to implement in SO based systems from > > > i3c spec. > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, you mentioned working on a lot of different topics, but most of > > > > them were left unfinished (userspace i3cdev interface, I3C slave > > > > framework/API, ...). > > > > > > The i3cdev does what we discuss during the proposal of i3c subsystem and > > > only expose i3c device without device driver yet I'm not happy with > > > transfer struct. > > > For the tools I have for hdr and sdr transfers, for now I didn't feel the > > > need of a tool for ccc (but for testing purposes it would help a lot). > > > > > > > Any plans to post RFCs on those aspects anytime > > > > soon? I mean, there's plenty of topics to work on, and I'd really prefer > > > > that each developer work on a different topic instead of duplicating the > > > > effort... > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Boris > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Vitor Soares > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Regards, > > Przemyslaw Gaj > > Again sorry for the delay. I will try to send this soon. Can you please share what you have now (even if it's not finished) so Przemek can start looking at it? _______________________________________________ linux-i3c mailing list linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-i3c