Re: [RFC 0/9] i2c: slave: improve i2c client address spaces and their DT support
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:13:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: On 07/17/2015 08:08 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: As promised here is my RFC to improve address spaces for I2C. This should give i2c seperate address spaces for standard clients, 10 bit clients, and our own slave clients. So, you can now have a 7 bit slave at 0x50 and a 10 bit slave at 0x050. Or, you can have a slave driver listening at some address and at the same time have a client driver talking to this address. Note that this is only the core support for that separation, I am still not sure if there is hardware being able talking to its own slave address, but we will see. This RFC and while I did some quick tests, it is not thoroughly tested. But I wanted to push it out before I leave the computer for the weekend. It still shows what path I chose to solve the problem. So, comments on that and further testing are more than welcome! BTW Andrey, I did not modify your patch and couldn't get the i2c-slave-eeprom driver to work with my Jetson TK1. Does this work for you? This approach makes sense to me. \o/ I'd expect patch 2/9 dt-bindings: add header for generic I2C flags in bindings to document the flags (or at least mention their existence, and point at the new header file) in the core I2C bindings document. Yes. I forgot to say that docs are missing. I wanted to get some feedback first. This series is a good reason to finally start the core I2C binding document. Please consider the series, Acked-by: Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com (ack rather than review since I didn't review patch 1, and mostly concentrated on reviewing the concepts of how slaves were represented rather than the coding details). Thanks, exactly that I was looking for this RFC. Will try to send out proper patches this week. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC 0/9] i2c: slave: improve i2c client address spaces and their DT support
Hello Wolfram, On 17.07.2015 17:08, Wolfram Sang wrote: As promised here is my RFC to improve address spaces for I2C. This should give i2c seperate address spaces for standard clients, 10 bit clients, and our own slave clients. So, you can now have a 7 bit slave at 0x50 and a 10 bit slave at 0x050. Or, you can have a slave driver listening at some address and at the same time have a client driver talking to this address. Note that this is only the core support for that separation, I am still not sure if there is hardware being able talking to its own slave address, but we will see. This RFC and while I did some quick tests, it is not thoroughly tested. But I wanted to push it out before I leave the computer for the weekend. It still shows what path I chose to solve the problem. So, comments on that and further testing are more than welcome! BTW Andrey, I did not modify your patch and couldn't get the i2c-slave-eeprom driver to work with my Jetson TK1. Does this work for you? Thanks, Wolfram Thanks for the patches. Slave mode works for me. The series looks good. Only hardcoded values in patch 4 confuse me a little. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-i2c in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC 0/9] i2c: slave: improve i2c client address spaces and their DT support
Thanks for the patches. Slave mode works for me. Okay, need to have a closer look this week. I combined two I2C busses on my Jetson TK1. While the initialization of the slave works fine, reading from the slave via the second I2C controller does not work (yet). The series looks good. Great. I'd be happy for Acked-by or Tested-by tags if possible. Only hardcoded values in patch 4 confuse me a little. Yes, they will most likely be replaced by defines in the next series. We will need them in another place, too. However, since userspace relies on them, they should never be changed. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC 0/9] i2c: slave: improve i2c client address spaces and their DT support
On 17.07.2015 17:08, Wolfram Sang wrote: As promised here is my RFC to improve address spaces for I2C. This should give i2c seperate address spaces for standard clients, 10 bit clients, and our own slave clients. So, you can now have a 7 bit slave at 0x50 and a 10 bit slave at 0x050. Or, you can have a slave driver listening at some address and at the same time have a client driver talking to this address. Note that this is only the core support for that separation, I am still not sure if there is hardware being able talking to its own slave address, but we will see. This RFC and while I did some quick tests, it is not thoroughly tested. But I wanted to push it out before I leave the computer for the weekend. It still shows what path I chose to solve the problem. So, comments on that and further testing are more than welcome! BTW Andrey, I did not modify your patch and couldn't get the i2c-slave-eeprom driver to work with my Jetson TK1. Does this work for you? Thanks, Wolfram Andrey Danin (1): i2c: tegra: implement slave mode Wolfram Sang (8): dt-bindings: add header for generic I2C flags in bindings i2c: add a flag to mark clients as slaves i2c: apply address offset for slaves, too i2c: rename address check functions i2c: make address check indpendent from client struct i2c: apply DT flags when probing i2c: take address space into account when checking for used addresses dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts | 7 ++ drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig| 1 + drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c| 119 ++ drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c| 69 +++-- include/dt-bindings/i2c/i2c.h | 18 + include/linux/i2c.h | 9 ++- 6 files changed, 197 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/i2c/i2c.h The series is Tested-by: Andrey Danin danind...@mail.ru -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-i2c in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC 0/9] i2c: slave: improve i2c client address spaces and their DT support
On 07/17/2015 08:08 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: As promised here is my RFC to improve address spaces for I2C. This should give i2c seperate address spaces for standard clients, 10 bit clients, and our own slave clients. So, you can now have a 7 bit slave at 0x50 and a 10 bit slave at 0x050. Or, you can have a slave driver listening at some address and at the same time have a client driver talking to this address. Note that this is only the core support for that separation, I am still not sure if there is hardware being able talking to its own slave address, but we will see. This RFC and while I did some quick tests, it is not thoroughly tested. But I wanted to push it out before I leave the computer for the weekend. It still shows what path I chose to solve the problem. So, comments on that and further testing are more than welcome! BTW Andrey, I did not modify your patch and couldn't get the i2c-slave-eeprom driver to work with my Jetson TK1. Does this work for you? This approach makes sense to me. I'd expect patch 2/9 dt-bindings: add header for generic I2C flags in bindings to document the flags (or at least mention their existence, and point at the new header file) in the core I2C bindings document. Please consider the series, Acked-by: Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com (ack rather than review since I didn't review patch 1, and mostly concentrated on reviewing the concepts of how slaves were represented rather than the coding details). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-i2c in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[RFC 0/9] i2c: slave: improve i2c client address spaces and their DT support
As promised here is my RFC to improve address spaces for I2C. This should give i2c seperate address spaces for standard clients, 10 bit clients, and our own slave clients. So, you can now have a 7 bit slave at 0x50 and a 10 bit slave at 0x050. Or, you can have a slave driver listening at some address and at the same time have a client driver talking to this address. Note that this is only the core support for that separation, I am still not sure if there is hardware being able talking to its own slave address, but we will see. This RFC and while I did some quick tests, it is not thoroughly tested. But I wanted to push it out before I leave the computer for the weekend. It still shows what path I chose to solve the problem. So, comments on that and further testing are more than welcome! BTW Andrey, I did not modify your patch and couldn't get the i2c-slave-eeprom driver to work with my Jetson TK1. Does this work for you? Thanks, Wolfram Andrey Danin (1): i2c: tegra: implement slave mode Wolfram Sang (8): dt-bindings: add header for generic I2C flags in bindings i2c: add a flag to mark clients as slaves i2c: apply address offset for slaves, too i2c: rename address check functions i2c: make address check indpendent from client struct i2c: apply DT flags when probing i2c: take address space into account when checking for used addresses dts: tegra: WIP: hack dts to test new dt flags for i2c arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts | 7 ++ drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig| 1 + drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c| 119 ++ drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c| 69 +++-- include/dt-bindings/i2c/i2c.h | 18 + include/linux/i2c.h | 9 ++- 6 files changed, 197 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/i2c/i2c.h -- 2.1.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-i2c in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
