[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210629105649.nt63mxtiy6u7de3g@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:26:49 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Jie Deng <jie.deng@...el.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.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 29-06-21, 12:43, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > From the spec:
> >
> > The case when ``length of \field{write_buf}''=0, and at the same time,
> > ``length of \field{read_buf}''=0 doesn't make any sense.
> >
> > I mentioned this in my first reply and to my understanding I did not get
> > a reply that this has changed meanwhile.
> >
>
> Also, this code as mentioned before:
>
> > + if (!msgs[i].len)
> > + break;
>
> I hope this can extended in the future to allow zero-length messages. If
> this is impossible we need to set an adapter quirk instead.
Ahh, yeah I saw these messages but I wasn't able to relate them to the
I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_QUICK thing. My bad.
Looked at Spec, Linux driver and my backends, I don't there is
anything that breaks if we allow this. So the best thing (looking
ahead) is if Jie sends a patch for spec to be modified like this.
The case when ``length of \field{write_buf}''=0, and at the same time,
``length of \field{read_buf}''=0 is called not-a-read-write request
and result for such a request is I2C device specific.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists