Thread (14 messages) flat view 14 messages, 6 authors, 2013-01-26

Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c-core: Add gpio based bus arbitration implementation

From: Grant Likely <hidden>
Date: 2012-12-20 00:58:33
Also in: linux-i2c, linux-samsung-soc, lkml

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Simon Glass [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Mark Brown
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:32:01PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
I'm not convinced on the design of this protocol. It won't scale beyond
2 bus masters and it seems very specific to the design of a specific
piece of hardware. I don't think it is mature enough to bake into the
I ought to point out that the original patch would've baked this into
the Samsung I2C driver but I asked for it to be split out as it's
nothing to do with the controller really and I'm sure I've seen it
before.
Grant your idea looks nice to me. I only worry if we should wait until
we have a second user before going so far with it. But it is certainly
a nice general solution.

The scaling beyond two bus masters would require the code to be
changed to check more input lines from other masters. Best avoided for
now I think until we have a use for it.
There is two parts to this; the design of the binding, and the
implementation. Of the two, the binding is the most difficult to
change, so it is important to get something we can live with long term
sorted out now. The implementation can start somewhat naive, with a
plan for how to extend it.

Regarding the scaling to multiple devices, it is a much smaller issue
(if an issue at all) if the arbitration back end is pluggable. Then it
becomes easy to support hardware with a different arbitration
protocol. If it gets baked into the core i2c code, then we've got a
problem and a lot more scrutiny needs to be put into this specific
protocol.

g.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help