Re: [PATCH] i3c: master: dw: split dw-i3c-master.c into master and bus specific parts

[vitor]

Hi Boris,


On 23/11/18 12:50, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:39:31 +0000
> vitor <vitor.soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> >
> > On 22/11/18 20:02, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 17:54:54 +0000
> > > Vitor Soares <vitor.soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > From: Vitor Soares <soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > This patch slipts dw-i3c-master.c into three pieces:
> > > > 	dw-i3c-master.c - contains the code that interacts directly with the
> > > > 	core in master mode.
> > > >
> > > > 	dw-i3c-platdrv.c - contains the code specific to the platform driver.
> > > >
> > > > 	dw-i3c-core.h - contains the definitions and declarations shared by
> > > > 	dw-i3c-master and dw-i3c-platdrv
> > > >
> > > > This patch will allow SOC integrators to add their code specific to
> > > > DesignWare I3C IP.
> > > Isn't it too early to do this change? Can't we wait until we have a SoC
> > > that actually embeds this IP?
> >
> > I'm trying to turn it more flexible so the other can reuse the code.
> Looking at the separation you've done here, I don't see why you need
> it. All the resources you request are generic, so why not just adding a
> new compat in the of_match_table?

I understand your point.


I'm just following what it's done in others Synopsys drivers and what I 
expect is that in the future we will have the same for the I3C.

Some of the current generic functions might be override according with 
SoC requirements (e.g i2c-designware, pcie-designware).


for now what do you prefer?

> > >   
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vitor Soares <soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/i3c/master/Kconfig          |   9 +-
> > > >    drivers/i3c/master/Makefile         |   5 +-
> > > >    drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-core.h    | 214 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >    drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c  | 299 ++----------------------------------
> > > >    drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-platdrv.c | 112 ++++++++++++++
> Just realized the driver is named dw-i3c-master, while the cadence
> driver is named i3c-master-cdns.c. I'll send a patch to make that
> consistent and follow the initial naming scheme: i3c-master-<ipname>.c.

As I shared with you in previous email, the structure that I have in 
mind is this one:

- core.h (or common.h, any though?)

- common.c

- master.c

- slave.c


so for me doesn't make sense to have for instance: i3c-master-dw-slave.c

But seeing what is already in the kernel I wasn't coherent and it should 
be named to i3c-designware-master.c


or


follow this https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/12/430


This topic rise another one related with the master folder. I understand 
that now the subsystem doesn't have slave support but the name is 
limited. Isn't better to have something like controller or busses? What 
do you have in mind for the slave?


Best regards,

Vitor Soares