linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: [Proposal] PM sleep children of inactive I2C bus segments off Masters in multi-master systems

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 1 Oct 2014 23:21:46 +0200
From:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:	Guenter Roeck <groeck@...iper.net>
Cc:	Danielle Costantino <danielle.costantino@...il.com>,
	linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rajat Jain <rajatjain@...iper.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Proposal] PM sleep children of inactive I2C bus segments
 off Masters in multi-master systems

On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 02:16:57PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:10:47PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > 
> > > Maybe you can find an error code which with some level of confidence
> > > reflects "lost mastership". Then you can implement whatever makes sense
> > > for your use case in your user space application(s).
> > 
> > We have a documented fault code for ArbitrationLost and that is -EAGAIN
> > (see Documentation/i2c/fault-codes). If a driver does use something
> > else, patches are very welcome.
> > 
> > Other than that, I find this thread very confusing. Of course can
> > another master modify the clients, this is what multi-master is all
> > about, no?
> > 
> That is the point I was trying to make in one of my earlier replies.

Yes, and I wondered why the thread continued after that, so I thought
I'll bring it up again :) No, seriously, I did not understand the reply
to that mail of yours, but I'll try again tomorrow after some sleep.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)