Re: [PATCH 3/7] i2c: designware-baytrail: Take punit lock on bus acquire

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

Hi,

On 12-01-17 19:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
>> pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
>> from the kernel may result in the punit trying to access the pmic i2c
>> bus, which results in a hang when it happens while we own the pmic i2c
>> bus semaphore.
>>
>> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155241
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> Tested-by: tagorereddy <tagore.chandan@gmail.com>
>
> I don't think the I2C patches need to go via I2C tree, so:
>
> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>

Note that as mentioned in the cover-letter, these 2 i2c patches depend
on these:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/710067/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/710068/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/710069/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/710070/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/710071/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/710072/

Which all have many reviews / acks. Given the race between i915
and designware-i2c opened up by the last patch in this series
these not having been merged yet is a good thing, but patch 1-5
are ready for merging.

So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
inter tree dependencies ?

And if so, can we then have you're Acked-by for the 6 above too ?

Regards,

Hans