[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <568A93A0.5030109@lysator.liu.se>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:45:36 +0100
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ator.liu.se>
To: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] i2c: pca954x: get rid of the i2c deadlock workaround
On 2016-01-04 16:19, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 04:10 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
>
> It would be quite good if the commit messaged said why it is now safe to
> remove the workaround.
Right, hmm, the two last patches seemed obvious at the time I wrote them,
but now I see a problem.
E.g. if two pca954x devices that depends on being idle when client devices
are not accessed happen to sit on the same bus (perhaps because the muxes
are used to hide a bunch of identical devices), it is indeed not safe to
make this change.
Thanks for making my think, and consider 9/10 and 10/10 dropped.
Cheers,
Peter
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists