[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84f0bf1b-9b69-6fc0-011c-2aafde208435@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:41:52 +0800
From: Jie Deng <jie.deng@...el.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, wsa@...nel.org,
jasowang@...hat.com, wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, conghui.chen@...el.com,
arnd@...db.de, kblaiech@...lanox.com,
jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru,
rppt@...nel.org, loic.poulain@...aro.org, tali.perry1@...il.com,
u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
yu1.wang@...el.com, shuo.a.liu@...el.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] i2c: virtio: add a virtio i2c frontend driver
On 2021/3/24 14:09, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-03-21, 14:05, Jie Deng wrote:
> Or, now that I think about it a bit more, another thing we can do here is see if
> virtqueue_get_buf() returns NULL, if it does then we should keep expecting more
> messages as it may be early interrupt. What do you say ?
I don't think we really need this because for this device, early
interrupt is a bad operation
which should be avoided. I can't think of why this device need to send
early interrupt, what
we can do is to clarify that this means loss of the remaining requests.
A device should never
do this, if it does then loss is the expected result.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists