Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] i3c: master: Extend address status bit to 4 and add I3C_ADDR_SLOT_EXT_INIT

[Frank Li]

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 03:00:38PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> Frank.li@xxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 2 Sep 2024 14:20:51 -0400:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 04:12:50PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > Hi Frank,
> > >
> > > > > > switch to this address if it is free.
> > > > > >  *
> > > > > > In step 1, i3c_bus_get_free_addr() is called. To optimize for step 2b, this
> > > > > > function should return an address that is not pre-reserved by any target
> > > > > > device with an assigned address in the device tree (DT).
> > > > >
> > > > > This does not make sense, if you want to optimize for 2b, why not
> > > > > selecting the assigned-address property in the first place if it's
> > > > > available?
> > > >
> > > > This is my first idea. But I gived up this way.
> > > >
> > > > Select an assigned-address here will involve a big change in i3c framework.
> > > > There are no PID information in i3c_master_get_free_addr().
> > > >
> > > > In DAA flow:
> > > > - SVC is get PID first, the get_free_addr(). This case, we can use PID to
> > > > get dt assigned address.(if change/add API)
> > > > - But HCI, it is difference, hci_cmd_v2_daa(), get_free_addr() firstly then
> > > > send out DAA command. So no PID information when call get_free_addr().
> > > >
> > > > To cover both case, return a *real* free address here is simplest solution.
> > >
> > > But this is a limitation of the HCI driver? So why not addressing this
> > > in the HCI driver instead? It would greatly simplify the core logic
> > > which becomes complex for wrong reasons.
> >
> > It is reasonable requirement to reduce stall SCL time. After get PID, SCL
> > have to stall low to wait for software get dynamtic address, I3C spec allow
> > relative long time for this, but still better if hardware can send out PID
> > and dynamatic address together withoug stall SCL low. Pre-alloc adddress is
> > good method if consider this.
>
> I don't think it is worth the trouble, given the complexity of all
> the changes. I prefer to simplify a bit the software and keep it
> readable than gaining few us with SCL low. In this case you also spend
> more time on the configuration I guess, so is it better than keeping
> SCL low (it will be low for some time anyway).

Yes, but see below about HCI. But two solutions will be worse.

>
> > > > >  Also, I don't understand why you would care to specifically
> > > > > *not* return an address that might be the default one for another
> > > > > device in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > If devices A (want adddress 0xA), device B (want address 0xB), if both
> > > > device send hot join at the same time. device B's PID less than device A,
> > > >
> > > > Device B will be found firstly, call get_free_addr(), 0xA will be return
> > > > if no this patch.
> > > >
> > > > Device A, call try_get_freeaddr() to get 0xB.
> > > >
> > > > So Devcie B will be assign to 0xA, and Device A will be assign to address 0xB.
> > > >
> > > > After do_daa command, framework will add device B and device A into i3c bus.
> > > >
> > > > When framework try to add device B to i3c bus, framework will try switch
> > > > device B's address to 0xB from 0xA, but it will be fail because 0xB already
> > > > assigned to device A.
> > >
> > > Well, okay, but that's exactly the situation that will happen if these
> > > devices are not described in your DT. I guess it's expected that a
> > > device not described in your DT can be connected, thanks to the
> > > hot-join feature. In this case you cannot know what is this device
> > > preferred address and you might end-up in the exact same situation.
> >
> > If not descript in DT, it means that any dynmatic address can be assigned.
>
> That's the point of view of the host. But a device might be "critical"
> and expect a low address, but the host not being aware. This is the
> same situation as your A and B conflict example.

DT provided addtional information to let host aware it.

>
> > > May I question the need for preferred addresses at all? Is this even
> > > part of the spec? What is the use-case?
> >
> > It is implements detail. I3C spec said lower dynamtic address have high IBI
> > priority. Spec just said assign lower dynamtic address if want to higher
> > IBI prioerity. Using DT assign-address just is one implement method.
>
> Thanks for all the information, for me the HCI driver must be modified
> to retrieve the PID before assigning the dynamic address.

I am not famillar with HCI, but according to I3C HCI Spec 1.2, sec 6.4.1
Dynamic Address Assignment with ENTDAA:

I think it is impossible to do that. A dynatimic address must be provided
before issue ENTDAA command. HCI is MIPI I3C standard defined Host
interface. we have to consider this.

Frank
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl