Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: i2c: aspeed: support for AST2600-i2cv2

[Jeremy Kerr]

Hi Ryan,

> Sorry, Do you mean add in description like following??
>   aspeed,xfer-mode:
>     description: |
>       I2C bus transfer mode selection.
>           ERRATA "I2C DMA fails when DRAM bus is busy and it can not
> take DMA write data
> Immediately", only 1 i2c bus can be enable for DMA mode.
>       - "byte": I2C bus byte transfer mode.
>       - "buffered": I2C bus buffer register transfer mode.
>       - "dma": I2C bus dma transfer mode (default)

I would suggest putting some background about the transfer mode as a
top-level description in the binding.

There has been a lot of discussion here on why the binding specifies
the transfer mode; it would be useful (for future readers) to have a
bit of context on what modes they should use.

Perhaps something like:

    description: |
      [general binding description]

      ASPEED ast2600 platforms have a number of i2c controllers, and share a
      single DMA engine between the set. DTSes can specify the mode of data
      transfer to/from the device - either DMA or programmed I/O - but
      hardware limitations may require a DTS to manually allocate which
      controller can use DMA mode; the enable-dma property allows control of
      this.

      In cases where one the hardware design results in a specific
      controller handling a larger amount of data, a DTS would likely
      allocate DMA mode for that one controller.

- adjusted for whatever property interface we settle on here, of course.

> > So, it sounds like:
> > 
> >  - there's no point in using byte mode, as buffer mode provides
> >    equivalent functionality with fewer drawbacks (ie, less interrupt
> >    load)
> > 
> >  - this just leaves the dma and buffer modes
> > 
> >  - only one controller can use dma mode
> > 
> > So: how about just a single boolean property to indicate "use DMA
> > on this controller"? Something like aspeed,enable-dma? Or if DT binding
> > experts can suggest something common that might be more suitable?
> 
> If so, just leave enable-dma and only support for buffer mode and dma
> mode, am I right?

Yes, from what you have said so far, I think just a single switch
between DMA / not-DMA is all you need here (unless there is any time
that byte mode is preferable?)

If there is already an existing DT convention for indicating/enabling
DMA capability, I would suggest using that. Otherwise, just a boolean
flag with a sensible name would seem to work fine. The DT experts
probably have a good idea of what works best here :)

Cheers,


Jeremy