From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760790Ab2C3Mtt (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:49:49 -0400 Received: from smtp.fireflyinternet.com ([109.228.6.236]:31562 "EHLO fireflyinternet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760237Ab2C3Mtm (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:49:42 -0400 X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=78.156.66.37; From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8 v7] fix gmbus writes and related issues To: Daniel Kurtz , Keith Packard , David Airlie , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Vetter Cc: Benson Leung , Yufeng Shen , Daniel Kurtz In-Reply-To: <1333108003-6341-1-git-send-email-djkurtz@chromium.org> References: <1333108003-6341-1-git-send-email-djkurtz@chromium.org> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:49:17 +0100 X-Originating-IP: 78.156.66.37 Message-ID: <1333111775_156407@CP5-2952> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:46:35 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote: > This patchset addresses a couple of issues with the i915 gmbus > implementation. > > v7 adds a final patch to switch to using DRM_ERROR for reporting timeouts. > > Daniel Kurtz (8): > drm/i915/intel_i2c: handle zero-length writes > drm/i915/intel_i2c: use double-buffered writes > drm/i915/intel_i2c: always wait for IDLE before clearing NAK > drm/i915/intel_i2c: use WAIT cycle, not STOP > drm/i915/intel_i2c: use INDEX cycles for i2c read transactions > drm/i915/intel_i2c: reuse GMBUS2 value read in polling loop > drm/i915/intel_i2c: remove POSTING_READ() from gmbus transfers > drm/i915/intel_i2c: use DRM_ERROR on timeouts The only two I am still dubious about is 4/8: use WAIT cycle, not STOP, and 8/8: use DRM_ERROR on timeouts, the rest are Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson The last is a little debatable, as i2c can be called from userspace (and other modules) and we have not verified that the adapters we set up correspond to devices conditions. So I think it is still possible under normal conditions to hit the error path, so would prefer to keep the log level as INFO. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre