From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751404AbeDDIQq (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2018 04:16:46 -0400 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com ([62.209.51.94]:33815 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751356AbeDDIQm (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2018 04:16:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols support To: Wolfram Sang CC: Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , , , References: <1521650940-11651-1-git-send-email-pierre-yves.mordret@st.com> <1521650940-11651-4-git-send-email-pierre-yves.mordret@st.com> <20180324224911.xz3fz2jojcdrovb4@ninjato> <2fadcd7f-3bfc-997e-a30e-808f6d854f2c@st.com> <20180403153122.ux6hnnmexwmq3soz@ninjato> From: Pierre Yves MORDRET Message-ID: <79784d30-0a88-9aab-081f-ee14c214288b@st.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:16:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180403153122.ux6hnnmexwmq3soz@ninjato> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.75.127.48] X-ClientProxiedBy: SFHDAG1NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.2) To SFHDAG5NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.14) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2018-04-04_02:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 ;)