From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] i2c: tegra: Better handle case where CPU0 is busy for a long time Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 17:32:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20200427153244.GF3464906@ulmo> References: <79f6560e-dbb5-0ae1-49f8-cf1cd95396ec@nvidia.com> <20200427074837.GC3451400@ulmo> <20200427084424.GA28817@kunai> <820200ce-17f3-18c0-6f79-3e582f45492d@gmail.com> <20200427103553.GA24446@kunai> <20200427105029.GB3464906@ulmo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Y/WcH0a6A93yCHGr" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200427105029.GB3464906@ulmo> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Dmitry Osipenko , Jon Hunter , Laxman Dewangan , Manikanta Maddireddy , Vidya Sagar , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org --Y/WcH0a6A93yCHGr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:50:29PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:35:53PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:07:19PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > > > 27.04.2020 11:44, Wolfram Sang =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > > > >=20 > > > >> Wolfram, can you revert the following two patches for v5.7, please? > > > >> > > > >> 8814044fe0fa i2c: tegra: Synchronize DMA before termination > > >=20 > > > This patch has nothing to do with your trouble, why do you want to > > > revert it? > >=20 > > I'll wait some more before pushing out, so you can discuss it. >=20 > Okay, let me run a quick test with that second patch still applied to > make sure it really is harmless. Alright, I tested v5.7-rc3 with this patch reverted: a900aeac2537 i2c: tegra: Better handle case where CPU0 is busy for a long = time and the results came back positive, so I think we can leave patch: 8814044fe0fa i2c: tegra: Synchronize DMA before termination in. But then again, I see that Dmitry posted this yesterday: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/26/481 which seems like it would be related to this and potentially be a follow-up fix for some corner cases? So I'm not sure how well this whole set has been tested yet. Maybe a better solution would be for the DMA synchronization patch to go into the 5.8 queue instead to make sure we get more testing cycles. Thierry --Y/WcH0a6A93yCHGr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEiOrDCAFJzPfAjcif3SOs138+s6EFAl6m+xoACgkQ3SOs138+ s6E5gQ/+P87EF76Ek/gB3avyIodTtpcN7etsoM8oJNJWlmxgooiyhvZEaK6dBO+n 6bwBtehuMfy3b0KW1AjyMsijY4Tf56/COp2fP2rSEMB0IqCPSygjX4w5qmZCVneo PiM5xCng+BjIu+P+yDiuDJ0w8DZ9IzCdBHuQsY+JIpFQdFZZ9zGO1bgw+rEytVUV Z8Hcg4/D3dN6FBRFPOPY3riOmi0HCdT9vvV3BRaqQ3fkVLFfgZ/Ve65quPpS+k0t ewnd8HUMTaP/KrCPU/85PvBmu6PSZ58qZXwVV+M3v1+x8lhdLPZHGsAMcJXXDP1l okLYy+aFm6gx3+egIhkKNDbEn//RrrgsE1VqGHVwb8ECwL/kII+/bS1v3j7snz7A e54Y0Er6D52SR8M+8oOGzSRueT/yuLNpx7h+++t72TGZpcvTGNR5KAp+NuIBeArg ybEEK/IpaLE7DUXZfqZoe/ujdj7ZMPuEPW/pxq5Xl1+XrKkJe7NyWedfdOxvXOpc AXqLcqSi8c+aKCx8Zoe/mh2klBRCShyYsBOCDiFklwM3lonSgBVIf4xW1bg1n10c Fw8jeSylwPg+4/lUH3oiIn48fOJtt6yooKbUvBGJ0qaspVEdvMeTKDgEmzoztCBz rzXVR3x6cdnAO4yIO3Gq3PxL/FR9rYjbZr0p/SwBlGF3KsqW+KA= =8yDJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Y/WcH0a6A93yCHGr--