Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] i3c: Add core I3C infrastructure

[Boris Brezillon]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:41:15 +0200
Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> [tried to send something like this yesterday, but it appears to have been
> lost, sorry for any duplicate]
> 
> On 2018-07-11 19:12, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:39:56 +0200
> > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Boris Brezillon
> >> <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> >>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:01:56 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:    
> >>>>> - the bus element is a separate object and is not implicitly described
> >>>>>   by the master (as done in I2C). The reason is that I want to be able
> >>>>>   to handle multiple master connected to the same bus and visible to
> >>>>>   Linux.
> >>>>>   In this situation, we should only have one instance of the device and
> >>>>>   not one per master, and sharing the bus object would be part of the
> >>>>>   solution to gracefully handle this case.
> >>>>>   I'm not sure we will ever need to deal with multiple masters
> >>>>>   controlling the same bus and exposed under Linux, but separating the
> >>>>>   bus and master concept is pretty easy, hence the decision to do it
> >>>>>   like that.
> >>>>>   The other benefit of separating the bus and master concepts is that
> >>>>>   master devices appear under the bus directory in sysfs.    
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not following here at all, sorry for missing prior discussion if this
> >>>> was already explained. What is the "multiple master" case? Do you
> >>>> mean multiple devices that are controlled by Linux and that each talk
> >>>> to other devices on the same bus, multiple operating systems that
> >>>> have talk to are able to own the bus with the kernel being one of
> >>>> them, a controller that controls multiple independent buses,
> >>>> or something else?    
> >>>
> >>> I mean several masters connected to the same bus and all exposed to the
> >>> same Linux instance. In this case, the question is, should we have X
> >>> I3C buses exposed (X being the number of masters) or should we only
> >>> have one?
> >>>
> >>> Having a bus represented as a separate object allows us to switch to
> >>> the "one bus : X masters" representation if we need too.    
> >> ...  
> >>>>
> >>>> This feels a bit odd: so you have bus_type that can contain devices
> >>>> of three (?) different device types: i3c_device_type, i3c_master_type
> >>>> and i3c_busdev_type.
> >>>>
> >>>> Generally speaking, we don't have a lot of subsystems that even
> >>>> use device_types. I assume that the i3c_device_type for a
> >>>> device that corresponds to an endpoint on the bus, but I'm
> >>>> still confused about the other two, and why they are part of
> >>>> the same bus_type.    
> >>>
> >>> i3c_busdev is just a virtual device representing the bus itself.
> >>> i3c_master is representing the I3C master driving the bus. The reason
> >>> for having a different type here is to avoid attaching this device to a
> >>> driver but still being able to see the master controller as a device on
> >>> the bus. And finally, i3c_device are all remote devices that can be
> >>> accessed through a given i3c_master.
> >>>
> >>> This all comes from the design choice I made to represent the bus as a
> >>> separate object in order to be able to share it between different
> >>> master controllers exposed through the same Linux instance. Since
> >>> master controllers are also remote devices for other controllers, we
> >>> need to represent them.    
> >>
> >> Ok, so I think this is the most important question to resolve: do we
> >> actually need to control multiple masters on a single bus from one OS
> >> or not?
> >>
> >> The problem that I see is that it breaks the tree abstraction that
> >> we use in the dtb interface, in the driver model and in sysfs.
> >> If we need to deal with a hardware bus structure like
> >>
> >>               cpu
> >>              /   \
> >>             /     \
> >>        platdev   platdev
> >>            |        |
> >>      i3c-master   i3c-master
> >>             \      /
> >>              \    /
> >>             i3c-bus
> >>              /    \
> >>          device   device
> >>
> >> then that abstraction no longer holds. Clearly you could build
> >> a system like that, and if we have to support it, the i3c infrastructure
> >> should be prepared for it, since we wouldn't be able to retrofit
> >> it later.  
> > 
> > Exactly. For the DT representation I thought we could have the primary
> > master hold the device nodes, and then have secondary masters reference
> > the main master with a phandle (i3c-bus = <&main_i3c_master>;). For the
> > sysfs representation, it would be the same. Only one of the master
> > would create the i3c_bus object and the other masters would just
> > reference it.
> >   
> >>
> >> What would be the point of building such a system though?  
> > 
> > This, I don't know. But as you said, if we go for a "one bus per
> > master" representation, going back will be difficult.
> >   
> >> Is this for performance, failover, or something else?  
> > 
> > No, I don't think so, especially since the mastership handover
> > operation is not free. So keeping the same master in control is
> > probably better in term of perfs.
> > 
> > One case I can think of is when the primary master does not have enough
> > resources to address all devices on the bus, and let the secondary
> > master handle all transactions targeting those devices.
> >   
> >> IOW, what feature would we lose if we were to declare that
> >> setup above invalid (and ensure you cannot represent it in DT)?  
> > 
> > That's exactly the sort of discussion I wanted to trigger. Maybe we
> > shouldn't care and expose this use case as if it was X different I3C
> > buses (with all devices present on the bus being exposed X times to the
> > system).  
> 
> For I2C, this multiple masters for one bus case was retrofitted in
> the i2c-demux-pinctrl driver. It's a huge kludge with a number of
> undesirable quirks. I don't know if the circumstances for adding
> this I2C driver also applies for I3C,

It's hard to guess now.

> but it might be an argument
> in favor of the proposed extra bus object...

I know that Wolfram was in favor of this separate bus <-> master
representation, probably because of his experience with this particular
driver.