Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Wolfram Sang]

> I am the maintainer. So yes I keep it as such ... with this complexity ;)

BTW you are not listed as such. Can you send an incremental patch for
MAINTAINERS?



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Wolfram Sang]

> I am the maintainer. So yes I keep it as such ... with this complexity ;)

BTW you are not listed as such. Can you send an incremental patch for
MAINTAINERS?



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Pierre Yves MORDRET]

On 04/03/2018 05:31 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
 All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> It miss SMBus Host Notification and SMBBus Alert. They are almost ready but 
>> I'm
>> struggling to put them back to operational state after recent changes 
>> related to
>> SMBust Host Notification. A more "classic" interrupt base solution has been 
>> put
>> in place but I fail to use implement it in my side.
>> Another patch set is going to be delivered for these 2 commands.
> 
> This is totally fine to implement it incrementally. Please just update the
> commit message with the more detailed explanation above.
> 

Ok. I get.

>>> That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
>>> don't mind, but you really want that?
>>>
>>
>> All SMBBus commands are implemented as such. I never try to emulation 
>> commands.
>> Should we use emulation SMBus commands or real commands... Don't know.
> 
> You won't see any difference on the wire. I don't know your HW. It might
> be that SMBus mode is more "automatic" and uses less interrupts. Or
> stuff like Alert or HostNotification only works in this mode. If you and
> the driver maintainers think it is worth the added complexity, I am
> fine, too.
> 
Ok. I see.
I am the maintainer. So yes I keep it as such ... with this complexity ;)

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Pierre Yves MORDRET]

On 04/03/2018 05:31 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
 All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> It miss SMBus Host Notification and SMBBus Alert. They are almost ready but 
>> I'm
>> struggling to put them back to operational state after recent changes 
>> related to
>> SMBust Host Notification. A more "classic" interrupt base solution has been 
>> put
>> in place but I fail to use implement it in my side.
>> Another patch set is going to be delivered for these 2 commands.
> 
> This is totally fine to implement it incrementally. Please just update the
> commit message with the more detailed explanation above.
> 

Ok. I get.

>>> That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
>>> don't mind, but you really want that?
>>>
>>
>> All SMBBus commands are implemented as such. I never try to emulation 
>> commands.
>> Should we use emulation SMBus commands or real commands... Don't know.
> 
> You won't see any difference on the wire. I don't know your HW. It might
> be that SMBus mode is more "automatic" and uses less interrupts. Or
> stuff like Alert or HostNotification only works in this mode. If you and
> the driver maintainers think it is worth the added complexity, I am
> fine, too.
> 
Ok. I see.
I am the maintainer. So yes I keep it as such ... with this complexity ;)

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Pierre Yves MORDRET]

On 04/03/2018 05:31 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
 All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> It miss SMBus Host Notification and SMBBus Alert. They are almost ready but 
>> I'm
>> struggling to put them back to operational state after recent changes 
>> related to
>> SMBust Host Notification. A more "classic" interrupt base solution has been 
>> put
>> in place but I fail to use implement it in my side.
>> Another patch set is going to be delivered for these 2 commands.
> 
> This is totally fine to implement it incrementally. Please just update the
> commit message with the more detailed explanation above.
> 

Ok. I get.

>>> That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
>>> don't mind, but you really want that?
>>>
>>
>> All SMBBus commands are implemented as such. I never try to emulation 
>> commands.
>> Should we use emulation SMBus commands or real commands... Don't know.
> 
> You won't see any difference on the wire. I don't know your HW. It might
> be that SMBus mode is more "automatic" and uses less interrupts. Or
> stuff like Alert or HostNotification only works in this mode. If you and
> the driver maintainers think it is worth the added complexity, I am
> fine, too.
> 
Ok. I see.
I am the maintainer. So yes I keep it as such ... with this complexity ;)

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Pierre Yves MORDRET]

On 04/03/2018 05:31 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
 All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> It miss SMBus Host Notification and SMBBus Alert. They are almost ready but 
>> I'm
>> struggling to put them back to operational state after recent changes 
>> related to
>> SMBust Host Notification. A more "classic" interrupt base solution has been 
>> put
>> in place but I fail to use implement it in my side.
>> Another patch set is going to be delivered for these 2 commands.
> 
> This is totally fine to implement it incrementally. Please just update the
> commit message with the more detailed explanation above.
> 

Ok. I get.

>>> That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
>>> don't mind, but you really want that?
>>>
>>
>> All SMBBus commands are implemented as such. I never try to emulation 
>> commands.
>> Should we use emulation SMBus commands or real commands... Don't know.
> 
> You won't see any difference on the wire. I don't know your HW. It might
> be that SMBus mode is more "automatic" and uses less interrupts. Or
> stuff like Alert or HostNotification only works in this mode. If you and
> the driver maintainers think it is worth the added complexity, I am
> fine, too.
> 
Ok. I see.
I am the maintainer. So yes I keep it as such ... with this complexity ;)

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Wolfram Sang]

> >> All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.
> > 
> > What does that mean?
> 
> It miss SMBus Host Notification and SMBBus Alert. They are almost ready but 
> I'm
> struggling to put them back to operational state after recent changes related 
> to
> SMBust Host Notification. A more "classic" interrupt base solution has been 
> put
> in place but I fail to use implement it in my side.
> Another patch set is going to be delivered for these 2 commands.

This is totally fine to implement it incrementally. Please just update the
commit message with the more detailed explanation above.

> > That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
> > don't mind, but you really want that?
> > 
> 
> All SMBBus commands are implemented as such. I never try to emulation 
> commands.
> Should we use emulation SMBus commands or real commands... Don't know.

You won't see any difference on the wire. I don't know your HW. It might
be that SMBus mode is more "automatic" and uses less interrupts. Or
stuff like Alert or HostNotification only works in this mode. If you and
the driver maintainers think it is worth the added complexity, I am
fine, too.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Wolfram Sang]

> >> All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.
> > 
> > What does that mean?
> 
> It miss SMBus Host Notification and SMBBus Alert. They are almost ready but 
> I'm
> struggling to put them back to operational state after recent changes related 
> to
> SMBust Host Notification. A more "classic" interrupt base solution has been 
> put
> in place but I fail to use implement it in my side.
> Another patch set is going to be delivered for these 2 commands.

This is totally fine to implement it incrementally. Please just update the
commit message with the more detailed explanation above.

> > That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
> > don't mind, but you really want that?
> > 
> 
> All SMBBus commands are implemented as such. I never try to emulation 
> commands.
> Should we use emulation SMBus commands or real commands... Don't know.

You won't see any difference on the wire. I don't know your HW. It might
be that SMBus mode is more "automatic" and uses less interrupts. Or
stuff like Alert or HostNotification only works in this mode. If you and
the driver maintainers think it is worth the added complexity, I am
fine, too.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Pierre Yves MORDRET]

On 03/24/2018 11:49 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:48:57PM +0100, Pierre-Yves MORDRET wrote:
>> This patch adds SMBus support for I2C controller embedded in STM32F7 Soc.
> 
>> All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.
> 
> What does that mean?

It miss SMBus Host Notification and SMBBus Alert. They are almost ready but I'm
struggling to put them back to operational state after recent changes related to
SMBust Host Notification. A more "classic" interrupt base solution has been put
in place but I fail to use implement it in my side.
Another patch set is going to be delivered for these 2 commands.

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: M'boumba Cedric Madianga 
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Yves MORDRET 
>> ---
>>   Version history:
>> v1:
>>* Initial
>> v2:
>>* fix Kbuild test robot issue (Unneeded semicolon)
>> ---
>>
>> fixup! i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support
>> ---
>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stm32f7.c | 377 
>> ++-
>>  1 file changed, 368 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
> don't mind, but you really want that?
> 

All SMBBus commands are implemented as such. I never try to emulation commands.
Should we use emulation SMBus commands or real commands... Don't know.

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Pierre Yves MORDRET]

On 03/24/2018 11:49 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:48:57PM +0100, Pierre-Yves MORDRET wrote:
>> This patch adds SMBus support for I2C controller embedded in STM32F7 Soc.
> 
>> All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.
> 
> What does that mean?

It miss SMBus Host Notification and SMBBus Alert. They are almost ready but I'm
struggling to put them back to operational state after recent changes related to
SMBust Host Notification. A more "classic" interrupt base solution has been put
in place but I fail to use implement it in my side.
Another patch set is going to be delivered for these 2 commands.

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: M'boumba Cedric Madianga 
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Yves MORDRET 
>> ---
>>   Version history:
>> v1:
>>* Initial
>> v2:
>>* fix Kbuild test robot issue (Unneeded semicolon)
>> ---
>>
>> fixup! i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support
>> ---
>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stm32f7.c | 377 
>> ++-
>>  1 file changed, 368 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
> don't mind, but you really want that?
> 

All SMBBus commands are implemented as such. I never try to emulation commands.
Should we use emulation SMBus commands or real commands... Don't know.

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Wolfram Sang]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:48:57PM +0100, Pierre-Yves MORDRET wrote:
> This patch adds SMBus support for I2C controller embedded in STM32F7 Soc.

> All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.

What does that mean?

> 
> Signed-off-by: M'boumba Cedric Madianga 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Yves MORDRET 
> ---
>   Version history:
> v1:
>* Initial
> v2:
>* fix Kbuild test robot issue (Unneeded semicolon)
> ---
> 
> fixup! i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stm32f7.c | 377 
> ++-
>  1 file changed, 368 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
don't mind, but you really want that?



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support

[Wolfram Sang]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:48:57PM +0100, Pierre-Yves MORDRET wrote:
> This patch adds SMBus support for I2C controller embedded in STM32F7 Soc.

> All SMBus protocols are implemented except SMBus-specific protocols.

What does that mean?

> 
> Signed-off-by: M'boumba Cedric Madianga 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Yves MORDRET 
> ---
>   Version history:
> v1:
>* Initial
> v2:
>* fix Kbuild test robot issue (Unneeded semicolon)
> ---
> 
> fixup! i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stm32f7.c | 377 
> ++-
>  1 file changed, 368 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

That is quite some complexity considering we have I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_EMUL. I
don't mind, but you really want that?



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature