linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 53/64] i2c: st: 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:14:23 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
To: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, 
	Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 53/64] i2c: st: reword according to newest specification

> > -	unsigned long timeout;
> > +	unsigned long time_left;
> 
> Thanks for doing this. Is the timeout v/s time_left language also due to the specification change?
> A link to the specification(s) in the commit message would be nice to have

I admit it is probably a seperate change...

> > -	if (!timeout) {
> > -		dev_err(i2c_dev->dev, "Write to slave 0x%x timed out\n",
> > -				c->addr);

... motivated by this "if (!timeout) dev_err("timeout!")" which is super
confusing to read because the logic is paradox.

> > +	if (!time_left)
> >  		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > -	}
> 
> Why did we lost the dev_err() here?

Agreed. Another seperate change. A timeout is not something the user
need to be aware of. It can regularly happen while an EEPROM is erasing
a page. The client driver will probably handle it correctly by trying
again. Only if the client driver sees a problem, then the user should be
notified. But not in the controller driver.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)