On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 8:51 AM Cédric Le Goater <[email protected]> wrote: > > +phil > > On 12/29/25 12:41, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > > On 12/29/25 11:00, Kane Chen wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Cédric Le Goater <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2025 1:51 AM > >>> To: Kane Chen <[email protected]>; Peter Maydell > >>> <[email protected]>; Steven Lee <[email protected]>; Troy > >>> Lee <[email protected]>; Jamin Lin <[email protected]>; Andrew > >>> Jeffery <[email protected]>; Joel Stanley <[email protected]>; > >>> open list:ASPEED BMCs <[email protected]>; open list:All patches CC > >>> here <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Troy Lee <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/19] hw/arm/aspeed: Integrate interrupt > >>> controller > >>> for AST1700 > >>> > >>> Hello Kane, > >>> > >>>> Thank you for the suggestion. Since I need to submit a v5 patch to > >>>> split the I2C code changes anyway, > >>> > >>> Can you please introduce the bus label property at the end of the patch > >>> series ? > >>> Please consider adding a functional test and updating the documentation > >>> too. > >>> > >>>> I will handle the naming adjustments and other minor fixes myself in > >>>> that version. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> C. > >> > >> Hi Cédric, > >> > >> If I move the bus label property to the end of this patch series, it will > >> trigger > >> a test failure in the current patch series. > > > > Which test ? > > > >> To avoid this, I plan to move the bus > >> label changes into a separate patch series and submit it before the AST1700 > >> series. I believe this approach ensures both series pass the tests > >> properly. > >> What are your thoughts on this? > > > > I would like to understand the issue first. > I see. > > The AST2700 functional tests fail : > > self.vm.add_args('-device', > > 'tmp105,bus=aspeed.i2c.bus.1,address=0x4d,id=tmp-test') > > The "bus label" proposal renames the IO expander I2C buses (32) to avoid > the name conflicts : > > /aspeed.ioexp0.i2c.bus.0 (i2c-bus) > ... > /aspeed.ioexp0.i2c.bus.15 (i2c-bus) > > /aspeed.ioexp1.i2c.bus.0 (i2c-bus) > ... > /aspeed.ioexp1.i2c.bus.15 (i2c-bus) > > Since this will be exposed in the user API, it would be best to avoid > introducing poorly chosen names. Having so many I2C buses (48) in a > single machine is somewhat new in QEMU and I am not aware of any naming > convention for this. > > May be others do ? > > Thanks, > > C.
I'm not aware of any convention, but I'd argue the current naming with the bus label makes sense. A i2c bus on the main machine is "aspeed.i2c.bus.%d" which clearly makes it easy to differenciate but see that the two busses are somehow related. Maybe it'd be worth changing the `aspeed_i2c_class_init` to make this relation more obvious by not using TYPE_ASPEED_I2C_BUS but use the string explicitly? Thanks, Nabih
