linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI mode

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: <3dad8ee4-7d9d-4602-bb5e-f148d51d1fcf@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:14:45 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>,
 Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
Cc: konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, andersson@...nel.org, wsa@...nel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
 quic_vdadhani@...cinc.com, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI
 mode

On 03/04/2024 08:46, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> On 3/29/2024 10:15 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On 28-03-24, 08:36, Andi Shyti wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:56:39 +0530, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya wrote:
>>>> I2C driver currently reports "DMA txn failed" error even though it's
>>>> NACK OR BUS_PROTO OR ARB_LOST. Detect NACK error when no device ACKs
>>>> on the bus instead of generic transfer failure which doesn't give any
>>>> specific clue.
>>>>
>>>> Make Changes inside i2c driver callback handler function
>>>> i2c_gpi_cb_result() to parse these errors and make sure GSI driver
>>>> stores the error status during error interrupt.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Applied to i2c/i2c-host-next on
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/local tree
>>
>> You applied changes to dmaengine driver without my ack! I dont agree to
>> the approach here, we could do better
>>
> Could you please suggest changes OR approach related comments ? So i can 
> make a new change which can clean the merged code ?  Hope that can 
> address the concerns.

Can you address original comments?

Best regards,
Krzysztof