Re: [PATCH v6 01/10] i3c: Add core I3C infrastructure

[vitor]

Hi Przemyslaw


On 28-08-2018 13:55, Przemyslaw Gaj wrote:
> Hi Vitor,
>
> I have already implemented Mastership request/handover but we are waiting for Borisâs patch to be accepted and merged. Anyway, my comments below.
>
> ïOn 8/28/18, 2:02 PM, "Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>      EXTERNAL MAIL
>      
>      
>      Hi Vitor,
>      
>      On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:50:12 +0100
>      vitor <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>      
>      > Hi Boris,
>      >
>      > The DT Bindings say "The node describing an I3C bus should be named
>      > i3c-master.". Do you have a field for secondary master?
>
> I think we donât need separate field for secondary master. Main and secondary masters
> support similar functionalities. Itâs enough to have this state internally and do mastership it it's needed.

Yes, you are right.

>      >
>      > On 24-08-2018 19:16, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>      > > Well, before even considering supporting secondary master registration,
>      > > we need to handle mastership handover. As for the DAA operation, it's
>      > > likely to be host specific, so we'll have to add a new hook to the
>      > > i3c_master_controller_ops struct.
>      > Do you mean when master try to delegate the bus ownership through
>      > GETACCMST? or to get the bus ownership with IBI-MR?
>      
>      I think we need to support both.
>
> I agree.

That's ok to me.

>      
>      >
>      > I think that could be useful to pass the ibi type on request_ibi(),
>      > there is some case where the master doesn't support IBI-MR.
>      
>      Actually, I was planning on making it completely separate from
>      regular slave IBIs. That is, the master controller driver would demux
>      the slave, MR and Hot Join IBIs, and if there's an MR request, queue a
>      mastership handover work to the workqueue (pretty much what we do for
>      Hot-Join already). Mastership handover is anyway likely to be IP
>      specific, so I don't think there's a need to make it look like a
>      regular IBI.
>
> I think it's better to have separate function to do mastership request.
>      
>      Regarding whether IBI-MR support should be exposed to the I3C framework
>      or not depends on how much will be automated on the framework side. I
>      don't the answer yet, but that's probably something will figure out
>      along the road.
>
> My current implementation is: when request_mastership field
> of i3c_master_controller_ops structure is set, master driver supports mastership requests.
> That's how I check if this is supported or not.
>      
>      Regards,
>      
>      Boris
>      
> Regards,
> Przemek
when you say request_mastership, do you mean the current master do the 
mastership hand-off or the secondary master request to be current master?

So, per my understanding since the Main master support the hand-off of 
the bus you accept all incoming MR, right? Or do you check all devices BCR?

Best regards,
Vitor Soares