Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] i2c: aspeed: added driver for Aspeed I2C

[Andrew Jeffery <andrew-zrmu5oMJ5Fs@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2348 bytes --]

On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 22:12 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Sorry for the delay, I went on a long vacation prior to receiving feedback and
> got back in the middle of a hardware bring up that consumed all of my attention
> for an extended period of time. I will try to plan upstream submissions around
> my other responsibilities better in the future.
> 
> Addressed comments from:
>   - Vladimir in: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg27387.html
>     and: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg27386.html
>   - Wolfram in: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg27476.html
>     and: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg27483.html
> 
> Changes since previous update:
>   - No longer arbitrarily restrict bus to be slave xor master.
>   - Pulled out "struct aspeed_i2c_controller" as a interrupt controller.
>   - Pulled out slave support into its own commit.
>   - Rewrote code that sets clock divider register because the original version
>     set it incorrectly.
>   - Discovered and fixed issue in implementation that caused certain slave
>     devices to misbehave; the cause was that the master IRQ handler would return
>     control to the requesting thread after the last RX or TX command was handled
>     such that the requesting thread would issue either a repeated start or stop.
>     This was incorrect because the time taken to complete the completion was too
>     great. I fixed this by rewriting the master IRQ handler so that it now
>     manages the entire transaction only returning control to the requesting
>     thread once the entire transaction is complete.
>   - Rewrote the aspeed_i2c_master_irq handler because the old method of
>     completing a completion in between restarts was too slow causing devices to
>     misbehave.
>   - Added support for I2C_M_RECV_LEN which I had incorrectly said was supported
>     before.
>   - Addressed other comments from Vladimir.
> 
> Changes have been tested on the Aspeed 2500 evaluation board, as before, and now
> on a real platform with an Aspeed 2520.

Looks like there's going to be another revision of the series, but
regardless, I've applied and tested v6 and had no issues. So:

Tested-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew-zrmu5oMJ5Fs@public.gmane.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]