[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZRSEntqne/1y1ozq@shikoro>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 21:38:06 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
To: Jan Bottorff <janb@...amperecomputing.com>
Cc: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@...rayinc.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Yann Sionneau <yann@...nneau.net>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: designware: Fix corrupted memory seen in the ISR
> So my next question, is the change to dw_reg_write something that I should
> write and submit, or should someone else submit something more generalized,
> like option 2 above? I don't own the i2c driver, I'm just trying to fix one
> issue on one processor with minimal risk of breaking something. I don't have
> the broader view of what's optimal for the whole DesignWare i2c driver. I
> also don't have any way to test changes on other models of processors.
Well, I guess this is a question for the designware maintainers: do we
want this one conversion from *_relaxed to non-relaxed. Or are we
playing safe by using non-relaxed all the time. I would suggest the
latter because the drivers I look after hardly write registers in a hot
path (and not many of them at a time). But you guys know your driver
better...
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists