linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] i2c: mpc: Interrupt driven transfer

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: <CAHp75VcB6sBxVRaJiER96_XGkDuN2sbJDhoPQW1=4NeVCE=8EA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 01:57:58 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] i2c: mpc: Interrupt driven transfer

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 11:15 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:52:06PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
> > The fsl-i2c controller will generate an interrupt after every byte
> > transferred. Make use of this interrupt to drive a state machine which
> > allows the next part of a transfer to happen as soon as the interrupt is
> > received. This is particularly helpful with SMBUS devices like the LM81
> > which will timeout if we take too long between bytes in a transfer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
>
> Okay, this change is too large and HW specific for a detailed review.
> But I trust you and hope you will be around to fix regressions if I
> apply it for 5.13? That kind of leads to the question if you want to
> step up as the maintainer for this driver?
>
> Only thing I noticed was a "BUG" and "BUG_ON" and wonder if we really
> need to halt the kernel in that case. Maybe WARN is enough?
>
> I'll apply the first five patches now, they look good to me.

And now is the time to revert the fifth one (at least, I don't know
the state of the rest).
It's obviously the series has not been tested (to some extent).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko