Re: [RFC PATCH i2c-next 1/2] dt-bindings: i2c: aspeed: Add 'idle-wait-timeout-ms' setting

[Jae Hyun Yoo]

On 9/25/2018 9:20 AM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> On 9/25/2018 1:27 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:15:46PM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> > > Hi Wolfram,
> > >
> > > On 9/24/2018 2:58 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:02:54AM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> > > > > On 9/10/2018 2:45 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> > > > > > +- idle-wait-timeout-ms    : bus idle waiting timeout in 
> > > > > > milliseconds when
> > > > > > +              multi-master is set, defaults to 100 ms when not
> > > > > > +              specified.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will change it to 'aspeed,idle-wait-timeout-ms' as it's a non standard
> > > > > property.
> > > >
> > > > No need. This binding is not a HW description, so not a DT property in
> > > > my book. I still don't understand: Your IP core in master mode does not
> > > > have a BUSY bit or similar which detects when a START was detected and
> > > > clears after a STOP?
> > >
> > > Okay, I'll keep this property as it is then.
> >
> > Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't think this a property, at all.
> > It doesn't describe the hardware, it is more of a configuration thing,
> > or?
>
> You are right. It doesn't describe the hardware but it needs to be
> configurable because it very depends on the peer master's behavior.
> If peer master sends a long packet usually, it should have a long
> timeout value since a slave receiving operation takes long time,
> and it should be adjusted with an optimal value with taking some
> experiments to make it not too long. Any suggestion?

Should I use timeout in struct i2c_adapter instead just like i2c-mpc
does?