linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/64] i2c: aspeed: reword according to newest specification

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: <vb4hempklviz6w4gd3eimprplybm4ckefwz2gyy7cp2uww2anv@b4egbq4u4rrg>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:17:48 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, 
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, 
	Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...econstruct.com.au>, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/64] i2c: aspeed: reword according to newest
 specification

Hi Wolfram,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 02:24:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Match the wording of this driver wrt. the newest I2C v7, SMBus 3.2, I3C
> specifications and replace "master/slave" with more appropriate terms.
> They are also more specific because we distinguish now between a remote
> entity ("client") and a local one ("target").
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
> index ce8c4846b7fa..4e6ea4a5cab9 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-aspeed.c
> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ struct aspeed_i2c_bus {
>  	bool				send_stop;
>  	int				cmd_err;
>  	/* Protected only by i2c_lock_bus */
> -	int				master_xfer_result;
> +	int				xfer_result;
>  	/* Multi-master */
>  	bool				multi_master;
>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE)
> @@ -608,9 +608,9 @@ static u32 aspeed_i2c_master_irq(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus, u32 irq_status)
>  out_complete:
>  	bus->msgs = NULL;
>  	if (bus->cmd_err)
> -		bus->master_xfer_result = bus->cmd_err;
> +		bus->xfer_result = bus->cmd_err;
>  	else
> -		bus->master_xfer_result = bus->msgs_index + 1;
> +		bus->xfer_result = bus->msgs_index + 1;
>  	complete(&bus->cmd_complete);
>  out_no_complete:
>  	return irq_handled;
> @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ static irqreturn_t aspeed_i2c_bus_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
>  	return irq_remaining ? IRQ_NONE : IRQ_HANDLED;
>  }
>  
> -static int aspeed_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
> +static int aspeed_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
>  				  struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num)

here the alignment goes a bi off.

>  {
>  	struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus = i2c_get_adapdata(adap);
> @@ -738,7 +738,7 @@ static int aspeed_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
>  		return -ETIMEDOUT;
>  	}
>  
> -	return bus->master_xfer_result;
> +	return bus->xfer_result;
>  }
>  
>  static u32 aspeed_i2c_functionality(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
> @@ -748,7 +748,7 @@ static u32 aspeed_i2c_functionality(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>  
>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE)
>  /* precondition: bus.lock has been acquired. */
> -static void __aspeed_i2c_reg_slave(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus, u16 slave_addr)
> +static void __aspeed_i2c_reg_target(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus, u16 slave_addr)

We  have the word master/slave forgotten here and there, but as
we are here, /slave_addr/target_addr/

>  {
>  	u32 addr_reg_val, func_ctrl_reg_val;
>  
> @@ -770,7 +770,7 @@ static void __aspeed_i2c_reg_slave(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus, u16 slave_addr)
>  	bus->slave_state = ASPEED_I2C_SLAVE_INACTIVE;
>  }
>  
> -static int aspeed_i2c_reg_slave(struct i2c_client *client)
> +static int aspeed_i2c_reg_target(struct i2c_client *client)
>  {
>  	struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus = i2c_get_adapdata(client->adapter);
>  	unsigned long flags;
> @@ -781,7 +781,7 @@ static int aspeed_i2c_reg_slave(struct i2c_client *client)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> -	__aspeed_i2c_reg_slave(bus, client->addr);
> +	__aspeed_i2c_reg_target(bus, client->addr);
>  
>  	bus->slave = client;
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bus->lock, flags);
> @@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ static int aspeed_i2c_reg_slave(struct i2c_client *client)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int aspeed_i2c_unreg_slave(struct i2c_client *client)
> +static int aspeed_i2c_unreg_target(struct i2c_client *client)
>  {
>  	struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus = i2c_get_adapdata(client->adapter);
>  	u32 func_ctrl_reg_val;
> @@ -814,11 +814,11 @@ static int aspeed_i2c_unreg_slave(struct i2c_client *client)
>  #endif /* CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE */
>  
>  static const struct i2c_algorithm aspeed_i2c_algo = {
> -	.master_xfer	= aspeed_i2c_master_xfer,
> +	.xfer	= aspeed_i2c_xfer,

here the alignment goes a bit off.

Andi