[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e85237b8-a572-4e45-aa08-18710635eea5@kl.wtf>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 01:09:37 +0200
From: Kenny Levinsen <kl@...wtf>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>,
Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, Hans de Goede
<hdegoede@...hat.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Radoslaw Biernacki <rad@...omium.org>,
Lukasz Majczak <lma@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] HID: i2c-hid: Rely on HID descriptor fetch to
probe
On 5/1/24 9:09 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Is it possible for a device to be wedged so hard that it refuses to
> acknowledge the address?
A slave is allowed to not acknowledge if not able (e.g., "because it's
performing some real time function"), but a slave that does not
acknowledge its address is electrically indistinguishable from a
disconnected device. In such case the device is impossible to detect
through I2C operations, and neither smbus probe nor a "real" command
will see it.
Any logic we have to silence missing devices will also silence entirely
unresponsive or extremely non-cooperate devices. That is the price to
pay for avoiding the log message unfortunately.
No other errors from the smbus probe or a real command would be related
to device presence, and some of them even suggest a device is present
but broken (arbitration loss, assuming no shorts).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists