From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756647AbbCRUbf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:31:35 -0400
Received: from sauhun.de ([89.238.76.85]:48156 "EHLO pokefinder.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753067AbbCRUbd (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:31:33 -0400
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:31:51 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Cc: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>,
        Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@kernel.org>,
        Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] i2c: davinci: use bus recovery infrastructure
Message-ID: <20150318203151.GA12072@katana>
References: <1417448047-15236-1-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
 <1417448047-15236-5-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1417448047-15236-5-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


--Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,

so, the bus recovery patches look fine to me in general.

It is only this one question left which I always had with bus recovery.
Maybe you guys can join me thinking about it.

> @@ -376,8 +366,7 @@ i2c_davinci_xfer_msg(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msg, int stop)
>  						      dev->adapter.timeout);
>  	if (r == 0) {
>  		dev_err(dev->dev, "controller timed out\n");
> -		davinci_i2c_recover_bus(dev);
> -		i2c_davinci_init(dev);
> +		i2c_recover_bus(adap);
>  		dev->buf_len = 0;
>  		return -ETIMEDOUT;

The I2C specs say in 3.1.16 that the recovery procedure should be used
when SDA is stuck low. So, I do wonder if we should apply the recovery
after a timeout. Stuck SDA might be one reason for timeout, but there
may be others...

Thanks,

   Wolfram


--Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVCeC2AAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2RAUQAJoY3djE5kdIc4SzhTystpwy
DN9XAGo56Bo5t3fGeB4cyuT8xZsxhq5fq49l62OmIfpL0gZBMpju8gWXWPRpF5Jp
K6crm4Z9qFyo7QMzBanqir3iklYYsTHAh3msQS72nL1QzYkPxc05Viz4WGGKkBob
Fw2YLrjg3IF/rN+2btA/KIiW9Z8Qx38Pp3EbLwcWwmIIEVTi/zDOkX2+yTO1w6r7
KXVdXwyYMNcUvdP0hF6zLRoX0rcjrkJwq7MU/q1XJwPm0fNWr7hPahMuaKrVHqXH
esyOjnqCRrq8UAyChLgkbzcdnZWat/4LppzMG9fI1XZUIUTbjIElvcvbuj8BfUuF
uS4ihPw1jlqfNX37E6TEO4Ufzbm22dMgXuCrV/eFqPpynezziWjkf7k7skGRJpDm
uK5gS9490XOCdPGIZdHVW/Pn523RwVh19dhfW7FHF2wBaDL+7Dd31vhKDT1/TNoQ
KNOil6l6qlwYwDIqguDry0Se8bpCbtI2qK7+QiCIR6RZ/bO++xhgFlBub2bbZmD6
2q1VQpLfgnfGSXp5isSKJr/u3d7P0tGUM2DvtG8kf8QWVUXXx8RxVXf2com2rQ9e
KnymLvGUTdeoSJdtFQo0RTJJv7wkjhEIZnD5iwAcEIKSE38ULMgs3TDQcpzw/XTP
X+m53oZ1P9mGLl3Q6xWe
=ydUi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q--