Hi,
some status updates...
> It is similar ADI version. Can you simple descript hardware behavor to show
> why need RENESAS_I3C_MAX_DEVS,
I hope the documentation links I sent were helpful.
> Add common header in drivers/i3c/master/core.h implement inline helper
> function
I decided to handle this incrementally. I need to work on the real show
stoppers first, I'd say.
> #define PRTS 0x00
> #define PRTS_PRTMD BIT(0)
>
> Add extra space help distinguish register and field define.
Done.
> > +#define STDBR 0x74
> > +#define STDBR_SBRLO(cond, x) ((((x) >> (cond)) & 0xff) << 0)
> > +#define STDBR_SBRHO(cond, x) ((((x) >> (cond)) & 0xff) << 8)
>
> FIELD_GET FIELD_PREP
>
> check other define
Done. Also with GETMASK
> > +static inline void i3c_reg_update(u32 mask, u32 val, void __iomem *reg)
> > +{
> > + u32 data = readl(reg);
> > +
> > + data &= ~mask;
> > + data |= (val & mask);
> > + writel(data, reg);
> > +}
>
> can you move reg to first argument to align below help function?
Done.
> > +out:
> > + kfree(xfer);
>
> you can __free(kfree) xfer = NULL at declear to avoid this goto branch.
Do you insist on this? It makes the driver less consistent because there
are other 'out'-branches with kfree() in them which we need to keep
anyhow, because there are more instructions needed. I can do the change
if you want but I personally would prefer to leave the code as is.
> > + if (!i3c_xfers[i].rnw && i3c_xfers[i].len > 4) {
>
> Only pre fill fifo when len >4? what happen if only write 1 byte?
That was a really good catch, thank you! I think the code is completely
redundant because we fill the FIFO again at a later time. Then, also
handling the case of < 4 bytes correctly. Sadly, I can't test this with
my current setup right now. I hope to have tested this by next week.
> > + if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&xfer->comp, XFER_TIMEOUT))
> > + renesas_i3c_dequeue_xfer(i3c, xfer);
>
> This may common problem, I3C spec have 100us timeout, target side may
> timeout when driver wait for irq. So target side treat "repeat start" as
> "start" and issue address arbitration.
As said, I will try to discuss this at the I3C plugfest.
> > + i3c->addrs[pos] = dev->info.dyn_addr ? : dev->info.static_addr;
>
> Are there extension of "?" operator in C ? I remember
As agreed, I will keep this.
> > + ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, ret, renesas_i3c_irqs[i].isr,
> > + 0, renesas_i3c_irqs[i].desc, i3c);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to request irq %s\n",
> > + renesas_i3c_irqs[i].desc);
> > + return ret;
I removed the printout comepletely. No need to do it for irqs.
I plan to resubmit the non-RFC version next week after the plugfest.
Fingers crossed.
Thanks and all the best,
Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
