[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.5 495/542] docs: i2c: writing-clients: properly name the stop condition

[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.5 495/542] docs: i2c: writing-clients: properly name the stop condition

[Sasha Levin]

From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>

[ Upstream commit 4fcb445ec688a62da9c864ab05a4bd39b0307cdc ]

In I2C there is no such thing as a "stop bit". Use the proper naming: "stop
condition".

Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
index ced309b5e0cc8..3869efdf84cae 100644
--- a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
+++ b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
@@ -357,9 +357,9 @@ read/written.
 
 This sends a series of messages. Each message can be a read or write,
 and they can be mixed in any way. The transactions are combined: no
-stop bit is sent between transaction. The i2c_msg structure contains
-for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the message
-and the message data itself.
+stop condition is issued between transaction. The i2c_msg structure
+contains for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the
+message and the message data itself.
 
 You can read the file ``i2c-protocol`` for more information about the
 actual I2C protocol.
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.5 500/542] i2c: cros-ec-tunnel: Fix slave device enumeration

[Sasha Levin]

From: Akshu Agrawal <akshu.agrawal@amd.com>

[ Upstream commit 8ff2d7ca4a55dfabf12e876369835bd024eb4621 ]

During adding of the adapter the slave device registration
use to fail as the acpi companion field was not populated.

Fixes: 9af1563a5486 ("i2c: cros-ec-tunnel: Make the device acpi compatible")
Signed-off-by: Akshu Agrawal <akshu.agrawal@amd.com>
Acked-by: Raul E Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c
index 958161c71985d..8a2db3ac3b3c7 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c
@@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ static int ec_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	bus->adap.dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
 	bus->adap.dev.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
 	bus->adap.retries = I2C_MAX_RETRIES;
+	ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&bus->adap.dev, ACPI_COMPANION(&pdev->dev));
 
 	err = i2c_add_adapter(&bus->adap);
 	if (err)
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.5 501/542] i2c: cros-ec-tunnel: Fix ACPI identifier

[Sasha Levin]

From: Raul E Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org>

[ Upstream commit b49f8e0e7bd17b968129790e40f9e2566f4f95ec ]

The initial patch was using the incorrect identifier.

Fixes: 9af1563a5486 ("i2c: cros-ec-tunnel: Make the device acpi compatible")
Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c
index 8a2db3ac3b3c7..790ea3fda693b 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cros-ec-tunnel.c
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id cros_ec_i2c_of_match[] = {
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, cros_ec_i2c_of_match);
 
 static const struct acpi_device_id cros_ec_i2c_tunnel_acpi_id[] = {
-	{ "GOOG001A", 0 },
+	{ "GOOG0012", 0 },
 	{ }
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, cros_ec_i2c_tunnel_acpi_id);
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.5 495/542] docs: i2c: writing-clients: properly name the stop condition

[Jean Delvare]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:48:07 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
> 
> [ Upstream commit 4fcb445ec688a62da9c864ab05a4bd39b0307cdc ]
> 
> In I2C there is no such thing as a "stop bit". Use the proper naming: "stop
> condition".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
> Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
> index ced309b5e0cc8..3869efdf84cae 100644
> --- a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
> @@ -357,9 +357,9 @@ read/written.
>  
>  This sends a series of messages. Each message can be a read or write,
>  and they can be mixed in any way. The transactions are combined: no
> -stop bit is sent between transaction. The i2c_msg structure contains
> -for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the message
> -and the message data itself.
> +stop condition is issued between transaction. The i2c_msg structure
> +contains for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the
> +message and the message data itself.
>  
>  You can read the file ``i2c-protocol`` for more information about the
>  actual I2C protocol.

I wouldn't bother backporting this documentation patch to stable and
longterm trees. That's a minor vocabulary thing really, it does not
qualify.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.5 495/542] docs: i2c: writing-clients: properly name the stop condition

[Luca Ceresoli]

Hi,

On 15/02/20 07:14, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:48:07 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit 4fcb445ec688a62da9c864ab05a4bd39b0307cdc ]
>>
>> In I2C there is no such thing as a "stop bit". Use the proper naming: "stop
>> condition".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>> Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
>> Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
>> index ced309b5e0cc8..3869efdf84cae 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
>> @@ -357,9 +357,9 @@ read/written.
>>  
>>  This sends a series of messages. Each message can be a read or write,
>>  and they can be mixed in any way. The transactions are combined: no
>> -stop bit is sent between transaction. The i2c_msg structure contains
>> -for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the message
>> -and the message data itself.
>> +stop condition is issued between transaction. The i2c_msg structure
>> +contains for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the
>> +message and the message data itself.
>>  
>>  You can read the file ``i2c-protocol`` for more information about the
>>  actual I2C protocol.
> 
> I wouldn't bother backporting this documentation patch to stable and
> longterm trees. That's a minor vocabulary thing really, it does not
> qualify.

I also feel no need to have it in stable branches. Hovever it would not
hurt, so whatever is fine for who's maintaining that branch will be fine
for me as well.

-- 
Luca

Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.5 495/542] docs: i2c: writing-clients: properly name the stop condition

[Sasha Levin]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:49:39PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 15/02/20 07:14, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:48:07 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit 4fcb445ec688a62da9c864ab05a4bd39b0307cdc ]
>>>
>>> In I2C there is no such thing as a "stop bit". Use the proper naming: "stop
>>> condition".
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>>> Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst | 6 +++---
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
>>> index ced309b5e0cc8..3869efdf84cae 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/i2c/writing-clients.rst
>>> @@ -357,9 +357,9 @@ read/written.
>>>
>>>  This sends a series of messages. Each message can be a read or write,
>>>  and they can be mixed in any way. The transactions are combined: no
>>> -stop bit is sent between transaction. The i2c_msg structure contains
>>> -for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the message
>>> -and the message data itself.
>>> +stop condition is issued between transaction. The i2c_msg structure
>>> +contains for each message the client address, the number of bytes of the
>>> +message and the message data itself.
>>>
>>>  You can read the file ``i2c-protocol`` for more information about the
>>>  actual I2C protocol.
>>
>> I wouldn't bother backporting this documentation patch to stable and
>> longterm trees. That's a minor vocabulary thing really, it does not
>> qualify.
>
>I also feel no need to have it in stable branches. Hovever it would not
>hurt, so whatever is fine for who's maintaining that branch will be fine
>for me as well.

No, you're right, this isn't stable material - I've missed it during
review and I'll drop it now. Thanks for pointing it out.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha