Re: [PATCH] i2c: designware: Fix handling of real but unexpected device interrupts

[Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>]

Hi Jarkko,

On 9/28/22 07:49, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> + Hans
> 
> I forgot to Cc you yesterday even especially had a question for you :-(

Yes I can test this on BYT and CHT hw where one of the i2c-designware
busses is shared with the PUNIT. I have added this patch to me personal
tree which I regularly test on these kinda devices.

I will let you know if I hit any issues, if you don't hear anything from
me then you can assume I have not hit any issues :)

You also mention being especially interested on testing on hw where
the interrupt line is shared with other devices. I don't think the
i2c-designware interrupts are ever shared with other hw on the BYT/CHT
devices I have.

Regards,

Hans



> Patch here and my comment to Andy below.
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/patch/20220927135644.1656369-1-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com/
> 
> On 9/27/22 17:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 04:56:44PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
>>>   #define STATUS_IDLE            0x0
>>
>> A side note: I think the clearer is to use STATUS_MASK and use
>> '&= ~STATUS_MASK' instead of '= STATUS_IDLE' in the affected pieces
>> of the code.
>>
>>> -#define STATUS_WRITE_IN_PROGRESS    0x1
>>> -#define STATUS_READ_IN_PROGRESS        0x2
>>> +#define STATUS_ACTIVE            0x1
>>> +#define STATUS_WRITE_IN_PROGRESS    0x2
>>> +#define STATUS_READ_IN_PROGRESS        0x4
>>
>> Can we at the same time replace them with BIT()?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Otherwise looks good to me,
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
>>
> Good points. I'll add these to follow up patches.
> 
> Jarkko
>