[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190327134751.GD5345@kunai>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 14:47:51 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
Stefan Lengfeld <contact@...fanchrist.eu>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/7] i2c: core: introduce callbacks for atomic
transfers
Hi Simon,
please delete unrelated text. I nearly missed the typo fix later.
> > - if (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled())
> > + if (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) {
> > + WARN(!adap->algo->master_xfer_atomic && !adap->algo->smbus_xfer_atomic,
> > + "No atomic I2C transfer handler for '%s'\n", dev_name(&adap->dev));
>
> Is WARN_ONCE more appropriate here?
Why? It could be multiple adapters or clients causing this?
> > + * The return codes from the @master_xfer{_atomic} field should indicate the
>
> I think "field" should be "fields" in the new text.
Fixed, thanks!
Regards,
Wolfram
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists