Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] i3c: master: Extend address status bit to 4 and add I3C_ADDR_SLOT_EXT_INIT

From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Frank Li <Frank.li@nxp.com>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>,
	Parshuram Thombare <pthombar@cadence.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Conor Culhane <conor.culhane@silvaco.com>,
	linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	imx@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] i3c: master: Extend address status bit to 4 and add I3C_ADDR_SLOT_EXT_INIT
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 15:00:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240903150038.3f224ec9@xps-13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZtYCA9cYywmUaJSQ@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810>

Hi Frank,

Frank.li@nxp.com wrote on Mon, 2 Sep 2024 14:20:51 -0400:

> On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 04:12:50PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >  
> > > > > switch to this address if it is free.
> > > > >  *
> > > > > In step 1, i3c_bus_get_free_addr() is called. To optimize for step 2b, this
> > > > > function should return an address that is not pre-reserved by any target
> > > > > device with an assigned address in the device tree (DT).  
> > > >
> > > > This does not make sense, if you want to optimize for 2b, why not
> > > > selecting the assigned-address property in the first place if it's
> > > > available?  
> > >
> > > This is my first idea. But I gived up this way.
> > >
> > > Select an assigned-address here will involve a big change in i3c framework.
> > > There are no PID information in i3c_master_get_free_addr().
> > >
> > > In DAA flow:
> > > - SVC is get PID first, the get_free_addr(). This case, we can use PID to
> > > get dt assigned address.(if change/add API)
> > > - But HCI, it is difference, hci_cmd_v2_daa(), get_free_addr() firstly then
> > > send out DAA command. So no PID information when call get_free_addr().
> > >
> > > To cover both case, return a *real* free address here is simplest solution.  
> >
> > But this is a limitation of the HCI driver? So why not addressing this
> > in the HCI driver instead? It would greatly simplify the core logic
> > which becomes complex for wrong reasons.  
> 
> It is reasonable requirement to reduce stall SCL time. After get PID, SCL
> have to stall low to wait for software get dynamtic address, I3C spec allow
> relative long time for this, but still better if hardware can send out PID
> and dynamatic address together withoug stall SCL low. Pre-alloc adddress is
> good method if consider this.

I don't think it is worth the trouble, given the complexity of all
the changes. I prefer to simplify a bit the software and keep it
readable than gaining few us with SCL low. In this case you also spend
more time on the configuration I guess, so is it better than keeping
SCL low (it will be low for some time anyway).

> > > >  Also, I don't understand why you would care to specifically
> > > > *not* return an address that might be the default one for another
> > > > device in the first place.  
> > >
> > > If devices A (want adddress 0xA), device B (want address 0xB), if both
> > > device send hot join at the same time. device B's PID less than device A,
> > >
> > > Device B will be found firstly, call get_free_addr(), 0xA will be return
> > > if no this patch.
> > >
> > > Device A, call try_get_freeaddr() to get 0xB.
> > >
> > > So Devcie B will be assign to 0xA, and Device A will be assign to address 0xB.
> > >
> > > After do_daa command, framework will add device B and device A into i3c bus.
> > >
> > > When framework try to add device B to i3c bus, framework will try switch
> > > device B's address to 0xB from 0xA, but it will be fail because 0xB already
> > > assigned to device A.  
> >
> > Well, okay, but that's exactly the situation that will happen if these
> > devices are not described in your DT. I guess it's expected that a
> > device not described in your DT can be connected, thanks to the
> > hot-join feature. In this case you cannot know what is this device
> > preferred address and you might end-up in the exact same situation.  
> 
> If not descript in DT, it means that any dynmatic address can be assigned.

That's the point of view of the host. But a device might be "critical"
and expect a low address, but the host not being aware. This is the
same situation as your A and B conflict example.

> > May I question the need for preferred addresses at all? Is this even
> > part of the spec? What is the use-case?  
> 
> It is implements detail. I3C spec said lower dynamtic address have high IBI
> priority. Spec just said assign lower dynamtic address if want to higher
> IBI prioerity. Using DT assign-address just is one implement method.

Thanks for all the information, for me the HCI driver must be modified
to retrieve the PID before assigning the dynamic address.

Thanks,
Miquèl

-- 
linux-i3c mailing list
linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-i3c