Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: i3c: xlnx: Add IBI and hot-join capability properties
From: Michal Simek
Date: Wed Oct 21 2026 - 03:11:15 EST
Hi Rob,
On 10/7/26 08:03, Patil, Shubham Sanjay wrote:
Hi Rob, Just a reminder !
<snip>
No reason to keep hj because the difference between HJ and IBI is the
address when address arbitration. If hardware support IBI, it should support
HJ. HJ just use special address 0x2.
For this IP, they appear to be controlled by different configuration time
parameters, so I don't think conflating the two is the right thing to do
here:
https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/pg439-axi-i3c/Configuration-Tab
Per this doc, and the original commit, hotjoin configuration is not
permitted when ibi is not supported but can be enabled and disabled
separately when it is.
I am not sure why provide such flexiblity, only difference is that compare
address 2 or other value.
It's not unusual for FPGA IPs to provide extreme flexibility so that the
consumption of resources can be kept to a minimum, often to the point of
excessiveness. E.g. for a ethernet MAC IP each individual statistic might
have a configuration option.
This feature may be quite common for i3c, if other soft IP provider such
flexiblity, still common property is the better than vendor specific one.
I'm not at all in favour of speculatively adding properties for
configuration properties of FPGA IPs, particularly given the likelihood
of abuse by others. Without multiple demonstrated users, things shouldn't
be considered for being made common anyway.
Rob:
What's your opinion? I predict we will met similar problem when
I3C become popluar.
Do you perfer use vendor property fistly or direct add common
property?
There will be back compatible problem if change vendor property to
common property.
Frank
It looks like this thread is stuck and everybody is waiting for your opinion about it. Can you please take a look when you have time?
Thanks,
Michal