180 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			6.9 KiB
			
		
	
	
	
		
			Text
		
	
	
	
	
	
		
		
			
		
	
	
			180 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			6.9 KiB
			
		
	
	
	
		
			Text
		
	
	
	
	
	
|   | Linux I2C slave interface description | ||
|  | ===================================== | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | by Wolfram Sang <wsa@sang-engineering.com> in 2014-15 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Linux can also be an I2C slave in case I2C controllers have slave support. | ||
|  | Besides this HW requirement, one also needs a software backend providing the | ||
|  | actual functionality. An example for this is the slave-eeprom driver, which | ||
|  | acts as a dual memory driver. While another I2C master on the bus can access it | ||
|  | like a regular EEPROM, the Linux I2C slave can access the content via sysfs and | ||
|  | retrieve/provide information as needed. The software backend driver and the I2C | ||
|  | bus driver communicate via events. Here is a small graph visualizing the data | ||
|  | flow and the means by which data is transported. The dotted line marks only one | ||
|  | example. The backend could also use e.g. a character device, be in-kernel | ||
|  | only, or something completely different: | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |               e.g. sysfs        I2C slave events        I/O registers | ||
|  |   +-----------+   v    +---------+     v     +--------+  v  +------------+ | ||
|  |   | Userspace +........+ Backend +-----------+ Driver +-----+ Controller | | ||
|  |   +-----------+        +---------+           +--------+     +------------+ | ||
|  |                                                                 | | | ||
|  |   ----------------------------------------------------------------+--  I2C | ||
|  |   --------------------------------------------------------------+----  Bus | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Note: Technically, there is also the I2C core between the backend and the | ||
|  | driver. However, at this time of writing, the layer is transparent. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | User manual | ||
|  | =========== | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | I2C slave backends behave like standard I2C clients. So, you can instantiate | ||
|  | them like described in the document 'instantiating-devices'. A quick example | ||
|  | for instantiating the slave-eeprom driver from userspace: | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |   # echo 0-0064 > /sys/bus/i2c/drivers/i2c-slave-eeprom/bind | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Each backend should come with separate documentation to describe its specific | ||
|  | behaviour and setup. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Developer manual | ||
|  | ================ | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | I2C slave events | ||
|  | ---------------- | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | The bus driver sends an event to the backend using the following function: | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 	ret = i2c_slave_event(client, event, &val) | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 'client' describes the i2c slave device. 'event' is one of the special event | ||
|  | types described hereafter. 'val' holds an u8 value for the data byte to be | ||
|  | read/written and is thus bidirectional. The pointer to val must always be | ||
|  | provided even if val is not used for an event, i.e. don't use NULL here. 'ret' | ||
|  | is the return value from the backend. Mandatory events must be provided by the | ||
|  | bus drivers and must be checked for by backend drivers. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Event types: | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED (mandatory) | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 'val': unused | ||
|  | 'ret': always 0 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Another I2C master wants to write data to us. This event should be sent once | ||
|  | our own address and the write bit was detected. The data did not arrive yet, so | ||
|  | there is nothing to process or return. Wakeup or initialization probably needs | ||
|  | to be done, though. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUESTED (mandatory) | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 'val': backend returns first byte to be sent | ||
|  | 'ret': always 0 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Another I2C master wants to read data from us. This event should be sent once | ||
|  | our own address and the read bit was detected. After returning, the bus driver | ||
|  | should transmit the first byte. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_RECEIVED (mandatory) | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 'val': bus driver delivers received byte | ||
|  | 'ret': 0 if the byte should be acked, some errno if the byte should be nacked | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Another I2C master has sent a byte to us which needs to be set in 'val'. If 'ret' | ||
|  | is zero, the bus driver should ack this byte. If 'ret' is an errno, then the byte | ||
|  | should be nacked. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * I2C_SLAVE_READ_PROCESSED (mandatory) | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 'val': backend returns next byte to be sent | ||
|  | 'ret': always 0 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | The bus driver requests the next byte to be sent to another I2C master in | ||
|  | 'val'. Important: This does not mean that the previous byte has been acked, it | ||
|  | only means that the previous byte is shifted out to the bus! To ensure seamless | ||
|  | transmission, most hardware requests the next byte when the previous one is | ||
|  | still shifted out. If the master sends NACK and stops reading after the byte | ||
|  | currently shifted out, this byte requested here is never used. It very likely | ||
|  | needs to be sent again on the next I2C_SLAVE_READ_REQUEST, depending a bit on | ||
|  | your backend, though. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * I2C_SLAVE_STOP (mandatory) | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 'val': unused | ||
|  | 'ret': always 0 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | A stop condition was received. This can happen anytime and the backend should | ||
|  | reset its state machine for I2C transfers to be able to receive new requests. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Software backends | ||
|  | ----------------- | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | If you want to write a software backend: | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * use a standard i2c_driver and its matching mechanisms | ||
|  | * write the slave_callback which handles the above slave events | ||
|  |   (best using a state machine) | ||
|  | * register this callback via i2c_slave_register() | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Check the i2c-slave-eeprom driver as an example. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Bus driver support | ||
|  | ------------------ | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | If you want to add slave support to the bus driver: | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * implement calls to register/unregister the slave and add those to the | ||
|  |   struct i2c_algorithm. When registering, you probably need to set the i2c | ||
|  |   slave address and enable slave specific interrupts. If you use runtime pm, you | ||
|  |   should use pm_runtime_forbid() because your device usually needs to be powered | ||
|  |   on always to be able to detect its slave address. When unregistering, do the | ||
|  |   inverse of the above. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * Catch the slave interrupts and send appropriate i2c_slave_events to the backend. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Check the i2c-rcar driver as an example. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | About ACK/NACK | ||
|  | -------------- | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | It is good behaviour to always ACK the address phase, so the master knows if a | ||
|  | device is basically present or if it mysteriously disappeared. Using NACK to | ||
|  | state being busy is troublesome. SMBus demands to always ACK the address phase, | ||
|  | while the I2C specification is more loose on that. Most I2C controllers also | ||
|  | automatically ACK when detecting their slave addresses, so there is no option | ||
|  | to NACK them. For those reasons, this API does not support NACK in the address | ||
|  | phase. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Currently, there is no slave event to report if the master did ACK or NACK a | ||
|  | byte when it reads from us. We could make this an optional event if the need | ||
|  | arises. However, cases should be extremely rare because the master is expected | ||
|  | to send STOP after that and we have an event for that. Also, keep in mind not | ||
|  | all I2C controllers have the possibility to report that event. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | About buffers | ||
|  | ------------- | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | During development of this API, the question of using buffers instead of just | ||
|  | bytes came up. Such an extension might be possible, usefulness is unclear at | ||
|  | this time of writing. Some points to keep in mind when using buffers: | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * Buffers should be opt-in and slave drivers will always have to support | ||
|  |   byte-based transactions as the ultimate fallback because this is how the | ||
|  |   majority of HW works. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * For backends simulating hardware registers, buffers are not helpful because | ||
|  |   on writes an action should be immediately triggered. For reads, the data in | ||
|  |   the buffer might get stale. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | * A master can send STOP at any time. For partially transferred buffers, this | ||
|  |   means additional code to handle this exception. Such code tends to be | ||
|  |   error-prone. | ||
|  | 
 |