linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8 v7] drm/i915/intel

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20120410104147.GI4115@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date:	Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:41:47 +0200
From:	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
	Yufeng Shen <miletus@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8 v7] drm/i915/intel_i2c: use WAIT cycle, not STOP

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:37:46PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:46:39PM +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > The i915 is only able to generate a STOP cycle (i.e. finalize an i2c
> > transaction) during a DATA or WAIT phase.  In other words, the
> > controller rejects a STOP requested as part of the first transaction in a
> > sequence.
> > 
> > Thus, for the first transaction we must always use a WAIT cycle, detect
> > when the device has finished (and is in a WAIT phase), and then either
> > start the next transaction, or, if there are no more transactions,
> > generate a STOP cycle.
> > 
> > Note: Theoretically, the last transaction of a multi-transaction sequence
> > could initiate a STOP cycle.  However, this slight optimization is left
> > for another patch.  We return -ETIMEDOUT if the hardware doesn't
> > deactivate after the STOP cycle.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
> 
> I've re-read gmbus register spec and STOP seems to be allowed even in the
> first cycle. Does this patch solve an issue for you? If not, I prefer we
> just drop it.

Actually I'd like to keep the -ETIMEDOUT return value, so maybe we should
keeep that hunk. I've picked up the previous 3 patches of this series, the
once after this one here conflict (without this patch here).
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@...ll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/