[PATCH 0/2] i2c: testunit: regression fixes

[PATCH 0/2] i2c: testunit: regression fixes

[Wolfram Sang]

My bad, when adding SMBUS_PROC_CALL support to the testunit, I didn't
check the old commands :( Consequently, two regressions were introduced
which get fixed by this series.


Wolfram Sang (2):
  i2c: testunit: don't erase registers after STOP
  i2c: testunit: discard write requests while old command is running

 drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH 1/2] i2c: testunit: don't erase registers after STOP

[Wolfram Sang]

STOP fallsthrough to WRITE_REQUESTED but this became problematic when
clearing the testunit registers was added to the latter. Actually, there
is no reason to clear the testunit state after STOP. Doing it when a new
WRITE_REQUESTED arrives is enough. So, no need to fallthrough, at all.

Fixes: b39ab96aa894 ("i2c: testunit: add support for block process calls")
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
---
 drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c
index a49642bbae4b..a5dcbc3c2c14 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static int i2c_slave_testunit_slave_cb(struct i2c_client *client,
 			queue_delayed_work(system_long_wq, &tu->worker,
 					   msecs_to_jiffies(10 * tu->regs[TU_REG_DELAY]));
 		}
-		fallthrough;
+		break;
 
 	case I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED:
 		memset(tu->regs, 0, TU_NUM_REGS);
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH 2/2] i2c: testunit: discard write requests while old command is running

[Wolfram Sang]

When clearing registers on new write requests was added, the protection
for currently running commands was missed leading to concurrent access
to the testunit registers. Check the flag beforehand.

Fixes: b39ab96aa894 ("i2c: testunit: add support for block process calls")
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
---
 drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c
index a5dcbc3c2c14..ca43e98cae1b 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-slave-testunit.c
@@ -121,6 +121,9 @@ static int i2c_slave_testunit_slave_cb(struct i2c_client *client,
 		break;
 
 	case I2C_SLAVE_WRITE_REQUESTED:
+		if (test_bit(TU_FLAG_IN_PROCESS, &tu->flags))
+			return -EBUSY;
+
 		memset(tu->regs, 0, TU_NUM_REGS);
 		tu->reg_idx = 0;
 		break;
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: testunit: don't erase registers after STOP

[Andi Shyti]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:14:47PM GMT, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> STOP fallsthrough to WRITE_REQUESTED but this became problematic when
> clearing the testunit registers was added to the latter. Actually, there
> is no reason to clear the testunit state after STOP. Doing it when a new
> WRITE_REQUESTED arrives is enough. So, no need to fallthrough, at all.
> 
> Fixes: b39ab96aa894 ("i2c: testunit: add support for block process calls")
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>

Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>

Thanks,
Andi

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: testunit: discard write requests while old command is running

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Wolfram,

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:14:48PM GMT, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> When clearing registers on new write requests was added, the protection
> for currently running commands was missed leading to concurrent access
> to the testunit registers. Check the flag beforehand.
> 
> Fixes: b39ab96aa894 ("i2c: testunit: add support for block process calls")
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>

Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>

Thanks,
Andi

Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: testunit: don't erase registers after STOP

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 547 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:14:47PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> STOP fallsthrough to WRITE_REQUESTED but this became problematic when
> clearing the testunit registers was added to the latter. Actually, there
> is no reason to clear the testunit state after STOP. Doing it when a new
> WRITE_REQUESTED arrives is enough. So, no need to fallthrough, at all.
> 
> Fixes: b39ab96aa894 ("i2c: testunit: add support for block process calls")
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>

Applied to for-current, thanks!


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: testunit: discard write requests while old command is running

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 454 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:14:48PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> When clearing registers on new write requests was added, the protection
> for currently running commands was missed leading to concurrent access
> to the testunit registers. Check the flag beforehand.
> 
> Fixes: b39ab96aa894 ("i2c: testunit: add support for block process calls")
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>

Applied to for-current, thanks!


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]