[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200917124730.GL3956970@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:47:30 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, jikos@...nel.org,
aaron.ma@...onical.com, admin@...ma.net,
benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com, hdegoede@...hat.com,
hn.chen@...dahitech.com, jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com,
kai.heng.feng@...onical.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
vicamo.yang@...onical.com, wsa@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] i2c: designware: Ensure tx_buf_len is nonzero for
SMBus block reads
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:22:54PM -0700, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
>
> The point of adding a byte to len in i2c_dw_recv_len() is to make sure
> that tx_buf_len is nonzero, so that i2c_dw_xfer_msg() can let the i2c
> controller know that the i2c transaction can end. Otherwise, the i2c
> controller will think that the transaction can never end for block
> reads, which results in the stop-detection bit never being set and thus
> the transaction timing out.
>
> Adding a byte to len is not a reliable way to do this though; sometimes
> it lets tx_buf_len become zero, which results in the scenario described
> above. Therefore, just directly ensure tx_buf_len cannot be zero to fix
> the issue.
I got only patch 2/4, where the other 3 along with cover letter?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists