linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 32/60] i2c: mv64xxx: 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: <87jzhllok1.fsf@BLaptop.bootlin.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:38:06 +0200
From: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Wolfram Sang
 <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jean Delvare
 <jdelvare@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 32/60] i2c: mv64xxx: reword according to newest
 specification

Hello Andi,

> Hi Wolfram,
>
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 01:20:32PM GMT, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Change the wording of this driver wrt. the newest I2C v7 and SMBus 3.2
>> specifications and replace "master/slave" with more appropriate terms.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c | 12 ++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c
>> index dc160cbc3155..29f94efedf60 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c
>> @@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ enum {
>>  	MV64XXX_I2C_STATE_WAITING_FOR_RESTART,
>>  	MV64XXX_I2C_STATE_WAITING_FOR_ADDR_1_ACK,
>>  	MV64XXX_I2C_STATE_WAITING_FOR_ADDR_2_ACK,
>> -	MV64XXX_I2C_STATE_WAITING_FOR_SLAVE_ACK,
>> -	MV64XXX_I2C_STATE_WAITING_FOR_SLAVE_DATA,
>> +	MV64XXX_I2C_STATE_WAITING_FOR_TARGET_ACK,
>> +	MV64XXX_I2C_STATE_WAITING_FOR_TARGET_DATA,
>
> I searched online for the datasheet but couldn't find it. It
> would be helpful to know if the SLAVE naming comes from the
> datasheet or if it is arbitrary.
>
> If it originates from the hardware specifications, I suggest
> keeping the term "SLAVE."
>
> If anyone can share the datasheet, I would be happy to review it
> myself.

I think you can find the information in any Marvell datasheet that is
referenced in Documentation/arch/arm/marvell.rst.
>
> Jean and Gregory, could you please check and provide your ack
> here?

I checked with the Armada 370 datasheet, and those states are not
explicitly referred to as "SLAVE." See section 25 for more details.

So, I think there is no problem with switching to "TARGET."

Acked-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>

Thanks,

Gregory


>
> Thanks,
> Andi