Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1551939 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] i2c: designware: enable SLAVE in platform module

Started byLuis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@synopsys.com>
First post2017-01-05 13:20 +0100
Last post2017-01-05 13:50 +0100
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] i2c: designware: enable SLAVE in platform module Luis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@synopsys.com> - 2017-01-05 13:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] i2c: designware: enable SLAVE in platform module Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-05 13:50 +0100

#1551939 — Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] i2c: designware: enable SLAVE in platform module

FromLuis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@synopsys.com>
Date2017-01-05 13:20 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 6/7] i2c: designware: enable SLAVE in platform module
Message-ID<sWfbs-2RN-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 28-Dec-16 18:10, Luis Oliveira wrote:
> On 28-Dec-16 17:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 16:41 +0000, Luis Oliveira wrote:
>>> On 28-Dec-16 16:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 15:53 +0000, Luis Oliveira wrote:
>>>>> On 28-Dec-16 15:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 14:43 +0000, Luis Oliveira wrote:
>>>>>>> - Slave mode selected in platform module (devicetree support
>>>>>>> only)
>>>>>>> - Check for ACPI - not supported in SLAVE mode:
>>>>>>>   - Changed the ifndef style to the use of ACPI_HANDLE that
>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>> NULL
>>>>>>>     if the device was not enumerated from ACPI namespace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what is wrong with ACPI?
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont have a way to test it. Just that.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, can you provide an excerpt to see how it will look like in
>>>> DTS?
>>>
>>> Yes, it looks like this now:
>>>
>>> 	i2c@0x2000 {
>>> 			compatible = "snps,designware-i2c";
>>> 			#address-cells = <1>;
>>> 			#size-cells = <0>;
>>> 			reg = <0x2000 0x100>;
>>> 			clock-frequency = <400000>;
>>> 			clocks = <&i2cclk>;
>>> 			interrupts = <0>;
>>>
>>> 			eeprom@64 {
>>> 				compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
>>> 				reg = <0x40000064>;
>>> 			};
>>> 	};
>>
>> +1 to Carlos' comment.
> 
> Agree, I'm on it.
> 
>>
>>>>  
>>>>>>> -	dev->functionality = I2C_FUNC_10BIT_ADDR |
>>>>>>> DW_IC_DEFAULT_FUNCTIONALITY;
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> -	i2c_dw_configure_master(pdev);
>>>>>>> +	if (ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev) == NULL) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think you need this at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is to avoid the use of the "ifdef" style I used before.
>>>>
>>>> My point is to drop it completely.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +		device_for_each_child_node(&pdev->dev, child)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is resource agnostic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +			fwnode_property_read_u32(child,
>>>>>>> "reg",
>>>>>>> &reg);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting I use of_ functions?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. See above.
>>
>> So, ACPI has a property to support slave mode for I2CSerialBus() macro.
>>
>> I would propose to create a helper function in i2c-core.c which will be
>> responsible for mode detection
>>
>> ... i2c_slave_mode_detect()
>> {
>> ...
>>  if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node) {
>>   ... (use of_*() here) ...
>>  } else if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_ACPI) && ACPI_HANDLE(dev))
>>   dev_dbg(..., "ACPI slave is not supported yet\n");
>>   ... to master ...
>>  } else {
>>   ... default to master ...
>>  }
>> }
>> EXPORT_...();
>>
>> Make it as a separate patch.
>>
> 
> Oh I see, yes it looks good. I will check it. Thanks
> 

Hi Andy,

I implemented a helper function as you proposed and it looks like this:

int i2c_slave_mode_detect(struct device *dev)
{
	struct device_node *child;
	u32 reg;
	
	if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node) {
		for_each_child_of_node(dev->of_node, child) {
			of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &reg);
			if (reg & I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS)
				return 1;
		}
	} else if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_ACPI) && ACPI_HANDLE(dev))
		dev_dbg(dev, "ACPI slave is not supported yet\n");
	else
		return 0;
	return 0;
}

Before I submit the patch to the i2c-core.c I wonder if I could have some
comment on the implementation.

Thanks,
Luis

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1551951

FromAndy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Date2017-01-05 13:50 +0100
Message-ID<sWfEu-31R-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1551939
On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 12:13 +0000, Luis Oliveira wrote:
> On 28-Dec-16 18:10, Luis Oliveira wrote:
> > On 28-Dec-16 17:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 16:41 +0000, Luis Oliveira wrote:
> > > > On 28-Dec-16 16:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:


> > > So, ACPI has a property to support slave mode for I2CSerialBus()
> > > macro.
> > > 
> > > I would propose to create a helper function in i2c-core.c which
> > > will be
> > > responsible for mode detection
> > > 
> > > ... i2c_slave_mode_detect()
> > > {
> > > ...
> > >  if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node) {
> > >   ... (use of_*() here) ...
> > >  } else if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_ACPI) && ACPI_HANDLE(dev))
> > >   dev_dbg(..., "ACPI slave is not supported yet\n");
> > >   ... to master ...
> > >  } else {
> > >   ... default to master ...
> > >  }
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_...();
> > > 
> > > Make it as a separate patch.
> > > 
> > 
> > Oh I see, yes it looks good. I will check it. Thanks
> > 
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> I implemented a helper function as you proposed and it looks like
> this:
> 
> int i2c_slave_mode_detect(struct device *dev)
> {
> 	struct device_node *child;
> 	u32 reg;
> 	
> 	if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node) {
> 		for_each_child_of_node(dev->of_node, child) {
> 			of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &reg);
> 			if (reg & I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS)
> 				return 1;
> 		}
> 	} else if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_ACPI) && ACPI_HANDLE(dev))
> 		dev_dbg(dev, "ACPI slave is not supported yet\n");

Curly braces here as well.

> 	else
> 		return 0;

For now this is not needed

> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> Before I submit the patch to the i2c-core.c I wonder if I could have
> some
> comment on the implementation.

Glad you did it. See above. Otherwise looks good to me.


-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web