From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@codeconstruct.com.au>
To: "Winiarska, Iwona" <iwona.winiarska@intel.com>,
"matt@codeconstruct.com.au" <matt@codeconstruct.com.au>,
"linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org" <linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: "alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
"joel@jms.id.au" <joel@jms.id.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] I3C MCTP net driver
Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 10:29:22 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae1cd56a180c7622676f23719cb133eae9697a35.camel@codeconstruct.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ec88c12095acb199492674adb2f01e1a9c5a9425.camel@intel.com>
Hi Iwona,
> > However: I would think it would be much simpler to just put the two
> > devices on the same i3c bus on the same MCTP network, and assign
> > distinct EIDs. Whether those devices could communicate can be defined by
> > bridging policy.
>
> The only reason why I believe it would be possible for someone to come up with
> such network layout would be the limited amount of EIDs available in MCTP 1.x,
> in which case putting everything in the same MCTP network won't be an option.
Yep, that's the reason why we implemented networks in the initial core
code - it's likely that we'll hit the EID limits at some point.
> I'm bringing this up, since I originally considered device-driver model that
> goes with network controller per I3C device.
> I think this is the only case in which it can be more complicated to model.
> I just want to avoid a situation where we paint ourselves into a corner, and the
> VLAN-like approach sounds good to me (if we ever end up needing it).
OK, neat - I think we have a plan should we need to represent the i3c
"logical bus" in future then.
> > The former is definitely simpler, and was what I had originally
> > intended, but may not cover all use-cases. I'd be interested in your
> > thoughts there.
>
> Currently, I don't see any use cases where a "forwarding" boolean flag wouldn't
> be enough, but we can go back to this in the future when we add bridging
> support.
Sounds good then, thanks for the input!
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
linux-i3c mailing list
linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-i3c
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-15 2:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-13 8:11 [RFC PATCH 0/2] I3C MCTP net driver Matt Johnston
2023-04-13 8:11 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] i3c: Add support for bus enumeration & notification Matt Johnston
2023-04-13 8:11 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mctp i3c: MCTP I3C driver Matt Johnston
2023-05-08 18:27 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] I3C MCTP net driver Winiarska, Iwona
2023-05-08 23:42 ` Jeremy Kerr
2023-05-09 21:14 ` Winiarska, Iwona
2023-05-10 3:28 ` Jeremy Kerr
2023-05-13 20:21 ` Winiarska, Iwona
2023-05-15 2:29 ` Jeremy Kerr [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ae1cd56a180c7622676f23719cb133eae9697a35.camel@codeconstruct.com.au \
--to=jk@codeconstruct.com.au \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=iwona.winiarska@intel.com \
--cc=joel@jms.id.au \
--cc=linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=matt@codeconstruct.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).