Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] i2c: i2c-stm32f7: Add initial SMBus protocols
 support
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
CC:     Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
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 <pierre-yves.mordret@st.com>
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
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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 ;)