Re: [PATCH v5] i2c: virtio: add a virtio i2c frontend driver
From: Jie Deng <hidden>
Date: 2021-03-02 06:24:20
On 2021/3/2 11:43, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 02-03-21, 10:21, Jie Deng wrote:quoted
On 2021/3/1 19:54, Viresh Kumar wrote: That's my original proposal. I used to mirror this interface with "struct i2c_msg". But the design philosophy of virtio TC is that VIRTIO devices are not specific to Linux so the specs design should avoid the limitations of the current Linux driver behavior.Right, I understand that.quoted
We had some discussion about this. You may check these links to learn the story. https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202010/msg00016.html https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202010/msg00033.html https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202011/msg00025.htmlSo the thing is that we want to support full duplex mode, right ? How will that work protocol wise ? I mean how would we know if we are expecting both tx and rx buffers in a transfer ?
Not for the full duplex. As Paolo explained in those links. We defined a combined request called "write-read request" " This is when a write is followed by a read: the master starts off the transmission with a write, then sends a second START, then continues with a read from the same address. In theory there's no difference between one multi-segment transaction and many single-segment transactions _in a single-master scenario_. However, it is a plausible configuration to have multiple guests sharing an I2C host device as if they were multiple master. So the spec should provide a way at least to support for transactions with 1 write and 1 read segment in one request to the same address. " From the perspective of specification design, it hopes to provide more choices while from the perspective of specific implementation, we can choose what we need as long as it does not violate the specification. Since the current Linux driver doesn't use this mechanism. I'm considering to move the "struct virtio_i2c_req" into the driver and use one "buf" instead.