On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:06:24 +0000
vitor [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Boris,


On 23/11/18 12:50, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:39:31 +0000
vitor [off-list ref] wrote:
 

quoted

Hi Boris,


On 22/11/18 20:02, Boris Brezillon wrote:  

quoted

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 17:54:54 +0000
Vitor Soares [off-list ref] wrote:
    

quoted

From: Vitor Soares <redacted>

This patch slipts dw-i3c-master.c into three pieces:
	dw-i3c-master.c - contains the code that interacts directly with the
	core in master mode.

	dw-i3c-platdrv.c - contains the code specific to the platform driver.

	dw-i3c-core.h - contains the definitions and declarations shared by
	dw-i3c-master and dw-i3c-platdrv

This patch will allow SOC integrators to add their code specific to
DesignWare I3C IP.  

Isn't it too early to do this change? Can't we wait until we have a SoC
that actually embeds this IP?  

I'm trying to turn it more flexible so the other can reuse the code.  

Looking at the separation you've done here, I don't see why you need
it. All the resources you request are generic, so why not just adding a
new compat in the of_match_table?  

I understand your point.


I'm just following what it's done in others Synopsys drivers and what I 
expect is that in the future we will have the same for the I3C.

Some of the current generic functions might be override according with 
SoC requirements (e.g i2c-designware, pcie-designware).


for now what do you prefer?

I prefer that we keep the driver as is until we actually need to split
things up.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Vitor Soares <redacted>
---
   drivers/i3c/master/Kconfig          |   9 +-
   drivers/i3c/master/Makefile         |   5 +-
   drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-core.h    | 214 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c  | 299 ++----------------------------------
   drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-platdrv.c | 112 ++++++++++++++  

Just realized the driver is named dw-i3c-master, while the cadence
driver is named i3c-master-cdns.c. I'll send a patch to make that
consistent and follow the initial naming scheme: i3c-master-<ipname>.c.  

As I shared with you in previous email, the structure that I have in 
mind is this one:

- core.h (or common.h, any though?)

- common.c

- master.c

- slave.c


so for me doesn't make sense to have for instance: i3c-master-dw-slave.c

If you have several files and they're all placed in a dw/ subdir, then
I agree, prefixing everything with i3c-master- is useless, as you'll
have to define a custom rule to create the i3c-master-dw.ko object.

When there's a single source file, and this source file is directly
used to create a .ko, we need this prefix, otherwise we would have
dw.ko, and this would basically conflict with any other designware
driver that does not have a proper prefix.

But seeing what is already in the kernel I wasn't coherent and it should 
be named to i3c-designware-master.c

Actually it's i3c-master-designware.c (or i3c-master-dw.c) if we follow
what's been done for the cadence driver.

or


follow this https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/12/430

And I agree with Linus on this, except that does not apply to single
source file drivers.

This topic rise another one related with the master folder. I understand 
that now the subsystem doesn't have slave support but the name is 
limited. Isn't better to have something like controller or busses? What 
do you have in mind for the slave?

drivers/i3c/slave/... for slave drivers and drivers/i3c/slave.c for the
framework, just like we have drivers/i3c/master/ for master controller
drivers and drivers/i3c/master.c.