From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1FCE4D9E9 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:19:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706793587; cv=none; b=Jta7Don5W1KmQP7s5GE4hXwLkFGQj+iMTwQQ7RE8CO08Ypc9/HSwqvWcDyGx7RMTeL/Rc4k4RlRcCbXfXFSNtfPWZlmNFNV2ZKxsaIE0JS4QmGXtbd21D2e3sLfQ9fdZIGmCgmrCF0pIwqBnirg9IgrcPziIDIY3VfXbO5LzJUM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706793587; c=relaxed/simple; bh=k84qtdA9z2Xk6mFLa8WMXJaWHZ4P4I8o+QIg+UPumac=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=OA6CBVznw2zEdEX1a9bPqy+l8oR4fofdLy2KJqW4K0BUP01ANZbx6+reK7m8i1j31N7HU5wPrqshmY3U1/4ebc0aDOaMQEYBw4U2u2R5DVyP0F98byybLuxIvvTnoNefC6Xzk9x9ae49RgCMOn80/qPvrRIlNI6re0S9syMeHRA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=TtXO4lZo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="TtXO4lZo" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1706793585; x=1738329585; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k84qtdA9z2Xk6mFLa8WMXJaWHZ4P4I8o+QIg+UPumac=; b=TtXO4lZoSyEGrJiJnDE0/sfIjo2oUHvrXT+Ia8qt/rVXeXbpbMBDgBlA CJNyvszJ/nGP+O8ifwrnnnVdDZm+CN874A2OfX1o+6HIkzi21BUIQSOvy I5myk8RmXfag4zNZAsF7vvCHfiQ+nI6fF5B8+I95hym4ulNg9SaoRRA7/ Gd0PMvVU7gvAB0Vb0ji1hjzEUnObP9FUQfiBR8Ip+Es27DMGrp/EDozF+ uh7qvtaB+SvHPctQD9AmTCSC4W9+ReC5xc9PuYQNgNq5D3fU/6Y1jyIq7 ExqeGEba5jXC2Jb70IeX6QrBAyvVnsZtMMZgbuaS4kqwmr//S/4x9orKC g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10969"; a="11268350" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,234,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="11268350" Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmvoesa104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Feb 2024 05:19:43 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10969"; a="738426410" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,234,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="738426410" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.237.72.79]) ([10.237.72.79]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2024 05:19:40 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:19:39 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] i2c: designware: Fix RX FIFO depth define on Wangxun 10Gb NIC To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Andi Shyti , Mika Westerberg , Jan Dabros , Jiawen Wu , Sanket Goswami , Basavaraj Natikar , Michael J References: <20240131141653.2689260-1-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com> <20240131141653.2689260-6-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Jarkko Nikula In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/1/24 13:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 04:16:51PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote: >> I believe RX FIFO depth define 0 is incorrect on Wangxun 10Gb NIC. It >> must be at least 1 since code is able to read received data from the >> DW_IC_DATA_CMD register. >> >> For now this define is irrelevant since the txgbe_i2c_dw_xfer_quirk() >> doesn't use the rx_fifo_depth member variable of struct dw_i2c_dev but >> is needed when converting code into generic polling mode implementation. > > Shouldn't this formally have a Fixes tag? > I don't think so since this define is not in use before my last patch. May needlessly bother stable bot & folks.