Messages in this thread | | | From | vitor <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 01/10] i3c: Add core I3C infrastructure | Date | Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:50:12 +0100 |
| |
Hi Boris,
The DT Bindings say "The node describing an I3C bus should be named i3c-master.". Do you have a field for secondary master?
On 24-08-2018 19:16, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Well, before even considering supporting secondary master registration, > we need to handle mastership handover. As for the DAA operation, it's > likely to be host specific, so we'll have to add a new hook to the > i3c_master_controller_ops struct. Do you mean when master try to delegate the bus ownership through GETACCMST? or to get the bus ownership with IBI-MR?
I think that could be useful to pass the ibi type on request_ibi(), there is some case where the master doesn't support IBI-MR.
> Once you've done that, we'll have trigger a mastership handover > everytime an I3C driver tries to send a frame on the bus, and the > master this frame should do through is not in control of the bus. That > should be pretty easy for the nominal case, but error cases are likely > to be hard to deal with. > Note that I have a ->cur_master field in the i3c_bus object which > stores allows us to track whose the currently active master. If > master->this != master->bus->cur_master that means you need to start a > mastership handover procedure. > > That's all I thought about for now, and we'll probably face other > problems when implementing it. Let me know if you have other questions, > and don't hesitate to share your code early during the development > phase. > > Also note that the bus representation is likely to change based on > Arnd's feedback, so you might have to rework your implementation a bit > at some point. > > Regards, > > Boris
Best regards, Vitor Soares
| |