On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:06:45AM +0800, Jie Deng wrote:
>
> On 2020/12/17 18:26, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 03:00:55AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 03:08:07PM +0800, Jie Deng wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +The \field{flags} of the request is currently reserved as
> > > > zero for future
> > > > +feature extensibility.
> > > > +
> > > > +The \field{written} of the request is the number of data
> > > > bytes in the \field{write_buf}
> > > > +being written to the I2C slave address.
> > > >
> > > > This field seems redundant since the device can determine the size
> > > > of
> > > > write_buf implicitly from the total out buffer size. virtio-blk
> > > > takes
> > > > this approach.
> > > >
> > > > The read/write are the actual number of data bytes being read from or
> > > > written
> > > > to the device
> > > > which is not determined by the device. So I don't think it is redundant.
> > > I am still not sure I understand the difference.
> > > This point is unclear to multiple people.
> > I think I get it now. This is made clear by splitting the struct:
> >
> > /* Driver->device fields */
> > struct virtio_i2c_out_hdr
> > {
> > le16 addr;
> > le16 padding;
> > le32 flags;
> > };
> >
> > /* Device->driver fields */
> > struct virtio_i2c_in_hdr
> > {
> > le16 written;
> > le16 read;
> > u8 status;
> > };
>
> written/read are not device->driver fields. They are driver->device fields.
> They are not determined by the device but the driver(user).
>
> However, Michael said that the two fields may duplicate buf size available
> in the descriptor. He intended to remove them.
>
> "
> I note that read and written actually duplicate buf size
> available in the descriptor.
> Given we no longer mirror i2c_msg 1:1 do we still want to do this?
> It will be trivial for the host device to populate these fields
> correctly for linux.
> Duplication of information iten leads to errors ...
> "
>
> But there is a corner case I'm not sure if you have noticed.
>
> read and written can be 0. I think we may not put a buf with size 0 into the
> virtqueue.
You always have the header and the status, right?
E.g. with the below, the total buffer size is virtio_i2c_out_hdr size +
write size for writes and read size + virtio_i2c_in_hdr size for reads.
Neither result is ever 0.
> @Stefan @Paolo
>
> So what's your opinion about these two fields ?
>
> > /*
> > * Virtqueue element layout looks like this:
> > *
> > * struct virtio_i2c_out_hdr out_hdr; /* OUT */
> > * u8 write_buf[]; /* OUT */
> > * u8 read_buf[]; /* IN */
> > * struct virtio_i2c_in_hdr in_hdr; /* IN */
> > */
> >
> > This makes sense to me: a bi-directional request has both write_buf[]
> > and read_buf[] so the vring used.len field is not enough to report back
> > how many bytes were written and read. The virtio_i2c_in_hdr fields are
> > really needed.
> >
> > Please split the struct in the spec so it's clear how this works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
