[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/2] This series supports 10bit addressing for driver-model I2C

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/2] This series supports 10bit addressing for driver-model I2C

[Masahiro Yamada]

10bit addressing can be supported by purely software.

It seems reasonable enough to handle 10bit-addressing within
i2c-uclass.c just like we have already supported offset address there.



Masahiro Yamada (2):
  cmd_i2c: change variable type for 10bit addressing support
  dm: i2c: support 10bit addressing in I2C uclass layer

 common/cmd_i2c.c         | 22 ++++++-------
 drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 include/i2c.h            |  4 +++
 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)

-- 
1.9.1

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 1/2] cmd_i2c: change variable type for 10bit addressing support

[Masahiro Yamada]

To store 10bit chip address, the variable type should not be uchar,
but uint.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
---

 common/cmd_i2c.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/common/cmd_i2c.c b/common/cmd_i2c.c
index 22db1bb..f65ab61 100644
--- a/common/cmd_i2c.c
+++ b/common/cmd_i2c.c
@@ -83,12 +83,12 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
 /* Display values from last command.
  * Memory modify remembered values are different from display memory.
  */
-static uchar	i2c_dp_last_chip;
+static uint	i2c_dp_last_chip;
 static uint	i2c_dp_last_addr;
 static uint	i2c_dp_last_alen;
 static uint	i2c_dp_last_length = 0x10;
 
-static uchar	i2c_mm_last_chip;
+static uint	i2c_mm_last_chip;
 static uint	i2c_mm_last_addr;
 static uint	i2c_mm_last_alen;
 
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int i2c_report_err(int ret, enum i2c_err_op op)
  */
 static int do_i2c_read ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
 {
-	u_char	chip;
+	uint	chip;
 	uint	devaddr, length;
 	int alen;
 	u_char  *memaddr;
@@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ static int do_i2c_read ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv
 
 static int do_i2c_write(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
 {
-	u_char	chip;
+	uint	chip;
 	uint	devaddr, length;
 	int alen;
 	u_char  *memaddr;
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ static int do_i2c_flags(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc,
  */
 static int do_i2c_md ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
 {
-	u_char	chip;
+	uint	chip;
 	uint	addr, length;
 	int alen;
 	int	j, nbytes, linebytes;
@@ -563,7 +563,7 @@ static int do_i2c_md ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]
  */
 static int do_i2c_mw ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
 {
-	uchar	chip;
+	uint	chip;
 	ulong	addr;
 	int	alen;
 	uchar	byte;
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ static int do_i2c_mw ( cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]
  */
 static int do_i2c_crc (cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
 {
-	uchar	chip;
+	uint	chip;
 	ulong	addr;
 	int	alen;
 	int	count;
@@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ static int do_i2c_crc (cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]
 static int
 mod_i2c_mem(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int incrflag, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
 {
-	uchar	chip;
+	uint	chip;
 	ulong	addr;
 	int	alen;
 	ulong	data;
@@ -957,7 +957,7 @@ static int do_i2c_probe (cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv
  */
 static int do_i2c_loop(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
 {
-	u_char	chip;
+	uint	chip;
 	int alen;
 	uint	addr;
 	uint	length;
@@ -1085,7 +1085,7 @@ static int do_sdram (cmd_tbl_t * cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
 {
 	enum { unknown, EDO, SDRAM, DDR2 } type;
 
-	u_char	chip;
+	uint	chip;
 	u_char	data[128];
 	u_char	cksum;
 	int	j;
@@ -1563,7 +1563,7 @@ static int do_sdram (cmd_tbl_t * cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
 #if defined(CONFIG_I2C_EDID)
 int do_edid(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *const argv[])
 {
-	u_char chip;
+	uint chip;
 	struct edid1_info edid;
 	int ret;
 #ifdef CONFIG_DM_I2C
-- 
1.9.1

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 1/2] cmd_i2c: change variable type for 10bit addressing support

[Simon Glass]

On 19 December 2014 at 11:34, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
> To store 10bit chip address, the variable type should not be uchar,
> but uint.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
>  common/cmd_i2c.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 1/2] cmd_i2c: change variable type for 10bit addressing support

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 19 December 2014 at 14:23, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> On 19 December 2014 at 11:34, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>> To store 10bit chip address, the variable type should not be uchar,
>> but uint.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
>> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> ---
>>
>>  common/cmd_i2c.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

I feel I should apply this to u-boot-dm as a bug fix, but please let
me know if there are any objections.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 1/2] cmd_i2c: change variable type for 10bit addressing support

[Heiko Schocher]

Hello Simon,

Am 29.12.2014 22:59, schrieb Simon Glass:
> Hi,
>
> On 19 December 2014 at 14:23, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On 19 December 2014 at 11:34, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>>> To store 10bit chip address, the variable type should not be uchar,
>>> but uint.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
>>> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>   common/cmd_i2c.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>
> I feel I should apply this to u-boot-dm as a bug fix, but please let
> me know if there are any objections.

I am fine with that, so:

Acked-by: Heiko Schocher<hs@denx.de>

bye,
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: i2c: support 10bit addressing in I2C uclass layer

[Masahiro Yamada]

Master send to / receive from 10-bit addressed slave devices
can be supported by software layer without any hardware change
because the LSB 8bit of the slave address is treated as data part.

Master Send to a 10bit-addressed slave chip is performed like this:

 DIR    Format
 M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
 M->S   address[7:0]
 M->S   data0
 M->S   data1
      ...

Master Receive from a 10bit-addressed slave chip is like this:

 DIR    Format
 M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
 M->S   address[7:0]
        (Restart)
 M->S   111110 + address[9:8] + R/W(1)
 S->M   data0
 S->M   data1
      ...

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
---

 drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 include/i2c.h            |  4 +++
 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c
index 005bf86..de9d92a 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c
@@ -31,20 +31,28 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
 static int i2c_setup_offset(struct dm_i2c_chip *chip, uint offset,
 			    uint8_t offset_buf[], struct i2c_msg *msg)
 {
-	int offset_len;
+	int offset_len = chip->offset_len;
 
-	msg->addr = chip->chip_addr;
-	msg->flags = chip->flags & DM_I2C_CHIP_10BIT ? I2C_M_TEN : 0;
-	msg->len = chip->offset_len;
+	msg->flags = 0;
 	msg->buf = offset_buf;
-	if (!chip->offset_len)
-		return -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
-	assert(chip->offset_len <= I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN);
-	offset_len = chip->offset_len;
-	while (offset_len--)
+
+	if (chip->flags & DM_I2C_CHIP_10BIT) {
+		msg->addr = I2C_ADDR_TEN_HIGH(chip->chip_addr);
+		*offset_buf++ = I2C_ADDR_TEN_LOW(chip->chip_addr);
+		msg->len = 1;
+	} else {
+		msg->addr = chip->chip_addr;
+		msg->len = 0;
+	}
+
+	assert(offset_len <= I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN);
+
+	while (offset_len--) {
 		*offset_buf++ = offset >> (8 * offset_len);
+		msg->len++;
+	}
 
-	return 0;
+	return msg->len ? 0 : -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
 }
 
 static int i2c_read_bytewise(struct udevice *dev, uint offset,
@@ -54,7 +62,7 @@ static int i2c_read_bytewise(struct udevice *dev, uint offset,
 	struct udevice *bus = dev_get_parent(dev);
 	struct dm_i2c_ops *ops = i2c_get_ops(bus);
 	struct i2c_msg msg[2], *ptr;
-	uint8_t offset_buf[I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN];
+	uint8_t offset_buf[I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN + 1];
 	int ret;
 	int i;
 
@@ -62,7 +70,8 @@ static int i2c_read_bytewise(struct udevice *dev, uint offset,
 		if (i2c_setup_offset(chip, offset + i, offset_buf, msg))
 			return -EINVAL;
 		ptr = msg + 1;
-		ptr->addr = chip->chip_addr;
+		ptr->addr = chip->flags & DM_I2C_CHIP_10BIT ?
+			I2C_ADDR_TEN_HIGH(chip->chip_addr) : chip->chip_addr;
 		ptr->flags = msg->flags | I2C_M_RD;
 		ptr->len = 1;
 		ptr->buf = &buffer[i];
@@ -83,7 +92,7 @@ static int i2c_write_bytewise(struct udevice *dev, uint offset,
 	struct udevice *bus = dev_get_parent(dev);
 	struct dm_i2c_ops *ops = i2c_get_ops(bus);
 	struct i2c_msg msg[1];
-	uint8_t buf[I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN + 1];
+	uint8_t buf[I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN + 2];
 	int ret;
 	int i;
 
@@ -106,7 +115,7 @@ int i2c_read(struct udevice *dev, uint offset, uint8_t *buffer, int len)
 	struct udevice *bus = dev_get_parent(dev);
 	struct dm_i2c_ops *ops = i2c_get_ops(bus);
 	struct i2c_msg msg[2], *ptr;
-	uint8_t offset_buf[I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN];
+	uint8_t offset_buf[I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN + 1];
 	int msg_count;
 
 	if (!ops->xfer)
@@ -118,9 +127,9 @@ int i2c_read(struct udevice *dev, uint offset, uint8_t *buffer, int len)
 		ptr++;
 
 	if (len) {
-		ptr->addr = chip->chip_addr;
-		ptr->flags = chip->flags & DM_I2C_CHIP_10BIT ? I2C_M_TEN : 0;
-		ptr->flags |= I2C_M_RD;
+		ptr->addr = chip->flags & DM_I2C_CHIP_10BIT ?
+			I2C_ADDR_TEN_HIGH(chip->chip_addr) : chip->chip_addr;
+		ptr->flags = I2C_M_RD;
 		ptr->len = len;
 		ptr->buf = buffer;
 		ptr++;
@@ -136,6 +145,7 @@ int i2c_write(struct udevice *dev, uint offset, const uint8_t *buffer, int len)
 	struct udevice *bus = dev_get_parent(dev);
 	struct dm_i2c_ops *ops = i2c_get_ops(bus);
 	struct i2c_msg msg[1];
+	int buf_len;
 
 	if (!ops->xfer)
 		return -ENOSYS;
@@ -157,27 +167,33 @@ int i2c_write(struct udevice *dev, uint offset, const uint8_t *buffer, int len)
 	 * copying the message.
 	 *
 	 * Use the stack for small messages, malloc() for larger ones. We
-	 * need to allow space for the offset (up to 4 bytes) and the message
+	 * need to allow space for the offset (up to 4 bytes), the second
+	 * byte of the slave address (if 10bit addressing) and the message
 	 * itself.
 	 */
-	if (len < 64) {
-		uint8_t buf[I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN + len];
+
+	buf_len = I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN + len;
+	if (chip->flags & DM_I2C_CHIP_10BIT)
+		buf_len++;
+
+	if (buf_len <= 64) {
+		uint8_t buf[64];
 
 		i2c_setup_offset(chip, offset, buf, msg);
+		memcpy(buf + msg->len, buffer, len);
 		msg->len += len;
-		memcpy(buf + chip->offset_len, buffer, len);
 
 		return ops->xfer(bus, msg, 1);
 	} else {
 		uint8_t *buf;
 		int ret;
 
-		buf = malloc(I2C_MAX_OFFSET_LEN + len);
+		buf = malloc(buf_len);
 		if (!buf)
 			return -ENOMEM;
 		i2c_setup_offset(chip, offset, buf, msg);
+		memcpy(buf + msg->len, buffer, len);
 		msg->len += len;
-		memcpy(buf + chip->offset_len, buffer, len);
 
 		ret = ops->xfer(bus, msg, 1);
 		free(buf);
@@ -199,6 +215,7 @@ static int i2c_probe_chip(struct udevice *bus, uint chip_addr,
 {
 	struct dm_i2c_ops *ops = i2c_get_ops(bus);
 	struct i2c_msg msg[1];
+	u8 low_address;
 	int ret;
 
 	if (ops->probe_chip) {
@@ -210,11 +227,18 @@ static int i2c_probe_chip(struct udevice *bus, uint chip_addr,
 	if (!ops->xfer)
 		return -ENOSYS;
 
-	/* Probe with a zero-length message */
-	msg->addr = chip_addr;
-	msg->flags = chip_flags & DM_I2C_CHIP_10BIT ? I2C_M_TEN : 0;
-	msg->len = 0;
-	msg->buf = NULL;
+	if (chip_flags & DM_I2C_CHIP_10BIT) {
+		msg->addr = I2C_ADDR_TEN_HIGH(chip_addr);
+		low_address = I2C_ADDR_TEN_LOW(chip_addr);
+		msg->buf = &low_address;
+		msg->len = 1;
+	} else {
+		/* Probe with a zero-length message */
+		msg->addr = chip_addr;
+		msg->buf = NULL;
+		msg->len = 0;
+	}
+	msg->flags = 0;
 
 	return ops->xfer(bus, msg, 1);
 }
diff --git a/include/i2c.h b/include/i2c.h
index 9c6a60c..e616909 100644
--- a/include/i2c.h
+++ b/include/i2c.h
@@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ int i2c_set_chip_offset_len(struct udevice *dev, uint offset_len);
  */
 int i2c_deblock(struct udevice *bus);
 
+/* return upper, lower byte of 10 bit addressing, respectively */
+#define I2C_ADDR_TEN_HIGH(a)	(0x78 | (((a) >> 8) & 0x3))
+#define I2C_ADDR_TEN_LOW(a)	((a) & 0xff)
+
 /*
  * Not all of these flags are implemented in the U-Boot API
  */
-- 
1.9.1

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: i2c: support 10bit addressing in I2C uclass layer

[Simon Glass]

Hi Masahiro,

On 19 December 2014 at 11:34, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
> Master send to / receive from 10-bit addressed slave devices
> can be supported by software layer without any hardware change
> because the LSB 8bit of the slave address is treated as data part.
>
> Master Send to a 10bit-addressed slave chip is performed like this:
>
>  DIR    Format
>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>  M->S   address[7:0]
>  M->S   data0
>  M->S   data1
>       ...
>
> Master Receive from a 10bit-addressed slave chip is like this:
>
>  DIR    Format
>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>  M->S   address[7:0]
>         (Restart)
>  M->S   111110 + address[9:8] + R/W(1)
>  S->M   data0
>  S->M   data1
>       ...
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
>  drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  include/i2c.h            |  4 +++
>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

Seems like a good idea if we can make it work...

But this is driver-specific. Some drivers have hardware to send the
address and it isn't part of the message. For example see the tegra
driver.

So what you have here feels a bit like a hack to me. Can't the driver
implement it? If you are trying to avoid driver work to support 10-bit
addresses, maybe it should be an option that we can enable for each
driver, so we don't break the other drivers?

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: i2c: support 10bit addressing in I2C uclass layer

[Masahiro YAMADA]

Hi Simon,


2014-12-20 6:34 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On 19 December 2014 at 11:34, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>> Master send to / receive from 10-bit addressed slave devices
>> can be supported by software layer without any hardware change
>> because the LSB 8bit of the slave address is treated as data part.
>>
>> Master Send to a 10bit-addressed slave chip is performed like this:
>>
>>  DIR    Format
>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>  M->S   data0
>>  M->S   data1
>>       ...
>>
>> Master Receive from a 10bit-addressed slave chip is like this:
>>
>>  DIR    Format
>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>         (Restart)
>>  M->S   111110 + address[9:8] + R/W(1)
>>  S->M   data0
>>  S->M   data1
>>       ...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
>> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> ---
>>
>>  drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>  include/i2c.h            |  4 +++
>>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> Seems like a good idea if we can make it work...
>
> But this is driver-specific. Some drivers have hardware to send the
> address and it isn't part of the message. For example see the tegra
> driver.
>
> So what you have here feels a bit like a hack to me. Can't the driver
> implement it? If you are trying to avoid driver work to support 10-bit
> addresses, maybe it should be an option that we can enable for each
> driver, so we don't break the other drivers?


I was writing two I2C drivers on DM,
both of which have no dedicated hardware support for 10bit addressing.

Of course, the driver could implement it, but it means
I put the completely the same code in each of driver.

For write transaction, for example, we create a new buffer and copy
offset-address + data in Uclass layer.

Do I have to create a new buffer again, in my driver,
and copy  lower-slave-address + offset-address + data ?

Perhaps, is it a good idea to have it optional?

DM_I2C_FLAG_SW_TENBIT  - if set, uclass takes care of 10bit addressing
by software
                                                    if unset, each
driver is responsible to handle I2C_M_TEN correctly

altough I do think 10bit support on U-Boot is urgent necessity...




-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: i2c: support 10bit addressing in I2C uclass layer

[Simon Glass]

Hi Masahiro,

On 20 December 2014 at 00:25, Masahiro YAMADA <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> 2014-12-20 6:34 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
>> Hi Masahiro,
>>
>> On 19 December 2014 at 11:34, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>>> Master send to / receive from 10-bit addressed slave devices
>>> can be supported by software layer without any hardware change
>>> because the LSB 8bit of the slave address is treated as data part.
>>>
>>> Master Send to a 10bit-addressed slave chip is performed like this:
>>>
>>>  DIR    Format
>>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>>  M->S   data0
>>>  M->S   data1
>>>       ...
>>>
>>> Master Receive from a 10bit-addressed slave chip is like this:
>>>
>>>  DIR    Format
>>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>>         (Restart)
>>>  M->S   111110 + address[9:8] + R/W(1)
>>>  S->M   data0
>>>  S->M   data1
>>>       ...
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
>>> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>  include/i2c.h            |  4 +++
>>>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>
>> Seems like a good idea if we can make it work...
>>
>> But this is driver-specific. Some drivers have hardware to send the
>> address and it isn't part of the message. For example see the tegra
>> driver.
>>
>> So what you have here feels a bit like a hack to me. Can't the driver
>> implement it? If you are trying to avoid driver work to support 10-bit
>> addresses, maybe it should be an option that we can enable for each
>> driver, so we don't break the other drivers?
>
>
> I was writing two I2C drivers on DM,
> both of which have no dedicated hardware support for 10bit addressing.
>
> Of course, the driver could implement it, but it means
> I put the completely the same code in each of driver.
>
> For write transaction, for example, we create a new buffer and copy
> offset-address + data in Uclass layer.
>
> Do I have to create a new buffer again, in my driver,
> and copy  lower-slave-address + offset-address + data ?

I see your point!

>
> Perhaps, is it a good idea to have it optional?
>
> DM_I2C_FLAG_SW_TENBIT  - if set, uclass takes care of 10bit addressing
> by software
>                                                     if unset, each
> driver is responsible to handle I2C_M_TEN correctly
>
> altough I do think 10bit support on U-Boot is urgent necessity...

I've thought about this quite a bit. We have only just changed the API
to be the same as Linux (the list of messages). It seems wrong to now
hack it around, such that the address field only stores the first part
of the address in 10-bit mode. Did we like the API or not?

I see two options that are somewhat sane and defensible:

- Add a helper function in the uclass that the driver can call to turn
the address + message into a single stream of bytes (we can avoid a
second malloc() by reserving space for the address bytes before the
message or similar similar, so long is it is clearly documented)
- Allow the driver to request that the message bytes should always
contain the address, which would remove the address-processing code
from the driver.

I think this needs a little more discussion before we decide what to do.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: i2c: support 10bit addressing in I2C uclass layer

[Simon Glass]

Hi Masahiro,

On 21 December 2014 at 11:53, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On 20 December 2014 at 00:25, Masahiro YAMADA <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-20 6:34 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
>>> Hi Masahiro,
>>>
>>> On 19 December 2014 at 11:34, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>>>> Master send to / receive from 10-bit addressed slave devices
>>>> can be supported by software layer without any hardware change
>>>> because the LSB 8bit of the slave address is treated as data part.
>>>>
>>>> Master Send to a 10bit-addressed slave chip is performed like this:
>>>>
>>>>  DIR    Format
>>>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>>>  M->S   data0
>>>>  M->S   data1
>>>>       ...
>>>>
>>>> Master Receive from a 10bit-addressed slave chip is like this:
>>>>
>>>>  DIR    Format
>>>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>>>         (Restart)
>>>>  M->S   111110 + address[9:8] + R/W(1)
>>>>  S->M   data0
>>>>  S->M   data1
>>>>       ...
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
>>>> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>>  include/i2c.h            |  4 +++
>>>>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Seems like a good idea if we can make it work...
>>>
>>> But this is driver-specific. Some drivers have hardware to send the
>>> address and it isn't part of the message. For example see the tegra
>>> driver.
>>>
>>> So what you have here feels a bit like a hack to me. Can't the driver
>>> implement it? If you are trying to avoid driver work to support 10-bit
>>> addresses, maybe it should be an option that we can enable for each
>>> driver, so we don't break the other drivers?
>>
>>
>> I was writing two I2C drivers on DM,
>> both of which have no dedicated hardware support for 10bit addressing.
>>
>> Of course, the driver could implement it, but it means
>> I put the completely the same code in each of driver.
>>
>> For write transaction, for example, we create a new buffer and copy
>> offset-address + data in Uclass layer.
>>
>> Do I have to create a new buffer again, in my driver,
>> and copy  lower-slave-address + offset-address + data ?
>
> I see your point!
>
>>
>> Perhaps, is it a good idea to have it optional?
>>
>> DM_I2C_FLAG_SW_TENBIT  - if set, uclass takes care of 10bit addressing
>> by software
>>                                                     if unset, each
>> driver is responsible to handle I2C_M_TEN correctly
>>
>> altough I do think 10bit support on U-Boot is urgent necessity...
>
> I've thought about this quite a bit. We have only just changed the API
> to be the same as Linux (the list of messages). It seems wrong to now
> hack it around, such that the address field only stores the first part
> of the address in 10-bit mode. Did we like the API or not?
>
> I see two options that are somewhat sane and defensible:
>
> - Add a helper function in the uclass that the driver can call to turn
> the address + message into a single stream of bytes (we can avoid a
> second malloc() by reserving space for the address bytes before the
> message or similar similar, so long is it is clearly documented)
> - Allow the driver to request that the message bytes should always
> contain the address, which would remove the address-processing code
> from the driver.
>
> I think this needs a little more discussion before we decide what to do.

Where do you want to take this one? Please see my suggestions above.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: i2c: support 10bit addressing in I2C uclass layer

[Masahiro YAMADA]

Hi Simon,


2014-12-22 3:53 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On 20 December 2014 at 00:25, Masahiro YAMADA <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-20 6:34 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
>>> Hi Masahiro,
>>>
>>> On 19 December 2014 at 11:34, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>>>> Master send to / receive from 10-bit addressed slave devices
>>>> can be supported by software layer without any hardware change
>>>> because the LSB 8bit of the slave address is treated as data part.
>>>>
>>>> Master Send to a 10bit-addressed slave chip is performed like this:
>>>>
>>>>  DIR    Format
>>>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>>>  M->S   data0
>>>>  M->S   data1
>>>>       ...
>>>>
>>>> Master Receive from a 10bit-addressed slave chip is like this:
>>>>
>>>>  DIR    Format
>>>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>>>         (Restart)
>>>>  M->S   111110 + address[9:8] + R/W(1)
>>>>  S->M   data0
>>>>  S->M   data1
>>>>       ...
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
>>>> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>>  include/i2c.h            |  4 +++
>>>>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Seems like a good idea if we can make it work...
>>>
>>> But this is driver-specific. Some drivers have hardware to send the
>>> address and it isn't part of the message. For example see the tegra
>>> driver.
>>>
>>> So what you have here feels a bit like a hack to me. Can't the driver
>>> implement it? If you are trying to avoid driver work to support 10-bit
>>> addresses, maybe it should be an option that we can enable for each
>>> driver, so we don't break the other drivers?
>>
>>
>> I was writing two I2C drivers on DM,
>> both of which have no dedicated hardware support for 10bit addressing.
>>
>> Of course, the driver could implement it, but it means
>> I put the completely the same code in each of driver.
>>
>> For write transaction, for example, we create a new buffer and copy
>> offset-address + data in Uclass layer.
>>
>> Do I have to create a new buffer again, in my driver,
>> and copy  lower-slave-address + offset-address + data ?
>
> I see your point!
>
>>
>> Perhaps, is it a good idea to have it optional?
>>
>> DM_I2C_FLAG_SW_TENBIT  - if set, uclass takes care of 10bit addressing
>> by software
>>                                                     if unset, each
>> driver is responsible to handle I2C_M_TEN correctly
>>
>> altough I do think 10bit support on U-Boot is urgent necessity...
>
> I've thought about this quite a bit. We have only just changed the API
> to be the same as Linux (the list of messages). It seems wrong to now
> hack it around, such that the address field only stores the first part
> of the address in 10-bit mode. Did we like the API or not?


I am not sure...
That is why I sent this series as RFC.


> I see two options that are somewhat sane and defensible:

I see another option:
Do not support 10bit address (or leave it to each driver if necessary).

Rationale:
Until now, U-boot has not supported 10bit address and nobody has not
complained about that.



> - Add a helper function in the uclass that the driver can call to turn
> the address + message into a single stream of bytes (we can avoid a
> second malloc() by reserving space for the address bytes before the
> message or similar similar, so long is it is clearly documented)
> - Allow the driver to request that the message bytes should always
> contain the address, which would remove the address-processing code
> from the driver.

How?  set a flag??


> I think this needs a little more discussion before we decide what to do.

Agreed.
We do not rush to make a decision.



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: i2c: support 10bit addressing in I2C uclass layer

[Simon Glass]

Hi Masahiro,

On 5 January 2015 at 07:56, Masahiro YAMADA <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> 2014-12-22 3:53 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
>> Hi Masahiro,
>>
>> On 20 December 2014 at 00:25, Masahiro YAMADA <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-12-20 6:34 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
>>>> Hi Masahiro,
>>>>
>>>> On 19 December 2014 at 11:34, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>>>>> Master send to / receive from 10-bit addressed slave devices
>>>>> can be supported by software layer without any hardware change
>>>>> because the LSB 8bit of the slave address is treated as data part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Master Send to a 10bit-addressed slave chip is performed like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>  DIR    Format
>>>>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>>>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>>>>  M->S   data0
>>>>>  M->S   data1
>>>>>       ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Master Receive from a 10bit-addressed slave chip is like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>  DIR    Format
>>>>>  M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>>>>>  M->S   address[7:0]
>>>>>         (Restart)
>>>>>  M->S   111110 + address[9:8] + R/W(1)
>>>>>  S->M   data0
>>>>>  S->M   data1
>>>>>       ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
>>>>> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>  drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>>>  include/i2c.h            |  4 +++
>>>>>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Seems like a good idea if we can make it work...
>>>>
>>>> But this is driver-specific. Some drivers have hardware to send the
>>>> address and it isn't part of the message. For example see the tegra
>>>> driver.
>>>>
>>>> So what you have here feels a bit like a hack to me. Can't the driver
>>>> implement it? If you are trying to avoid driver work to support 10-bit
>>>> addresses, maybe it should be an option that we can enable for each
>>>> driver, so we don't break the other drivers?
>>>
>>>
>>> I was writing two I2C drivers on DM,
>>> both of which have no dedicated hardware support for 10bit addressing.
>>>
>>> Of course, the driver could implement it, but it means
>>> I put the completely the same code in each of driver.
>>>
>>> For write transaction, for example, we create a new buffer and copy
>>> offset-address + data in Uclass layer.
>>>
>>> Do I have to create a new buffer again, in my driver,
>>> and copy  lower-slave-address + offset-address + data ?
>>
>> I see your point!
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps, is it a good idea to have it optional?
>>>
>>> DM_I2C_FLAG_SW_TENBIT  - if set, uclass takes care of 10bit addressing
>>> by software
>>>                                                     if unset, each
>>> driver is responsible to handle I2C_M_TEN correctly
>>>
>>> altough I do think 10bit support on U-Boot is urgent necessity...
>>
>> I've thought about this quite a bit. We have only just changed the API
>> to be the same as Linux (the list of messages). It seems wrong to now
>> hack it around, such that the address field only stores the first part
>> of the address in 10-bit mode. Did we like the API or not?
>
>
> I am not sure...
> That is why I sent this series as RFC.
>
>
>> I see two options that are somewhat sane and defensible:
>
> I see another option:
> Do not support 10bit address (or leave it to each driver if necessary).
>
> Rationale:
> Until now, U-boot has not supported 10bit address and nobody has not
> complained about that.

OK, well it is certainly possible for the driver to support it, and it
isn't very hard. As you say, there demand has not been high!

>
>
>
>> - Add a helper function in the uclass that the driver can call to turn
>> the address + message into a single stream of bytes (we can avoid a
>> second malloc() by reserving space for the address bytes before the
>> message or similar similar, so long is it is clearly documented)
>> - Allow the driver to request that the message bytes should always
>> contain the address, which would remove the address-processing code
>> from the driver.
>
> How?  set a flag??

I suppose the driver could set a flag in the uclass to tell the uclass
how to behave. I'm not sure if this will make things simpler or more
complicated.

>
>> I think this needs a little more discussion before we decide what to do.
>
> Agreed.
> We do not rush to make a decision.

OK, well patch 1 looks OK anyway, so I think we should take that.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: i2c: support 10bit addressing in I2C uclass layer

[Heiko Schocher]

Hello Masahiro,

Am 19.12.2014 19:34, schrieb Masahiro Yamada:
> Master send to / receive from 10-bit addressed slave devices
> can be supported by software layer without any hardware change
> because the LSB 8bit of the slave address is treated as data part.
>
> Master Send to a 10bit-addressed slave chip is performed like this:
>
>   DIR    Format
>   M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>   M->S   address[7:0]
>   M->S   data0
>   M->S   data1
>        ...
>
> Master Receive from a 10bit-addressed slave chip is like this:
>
>   DIR    Format
>   M->S   11110 + address[9:8] + R/W(0)
>   M->S   address[7:0]
>          (Restart)
>   M->S   111110 + address[9:8] + R/W(1)
>   S->M   data0
>   S->M   data1
>        ...
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
> Cc: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
>   drivers/i2c/i2c-uclass.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>   include/i2c.h            |  4 +++
>   2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>

bye,
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany