[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <lqspn72kegy6b7rrpefbajvomcefs3d764ndtwescwhg7jz6bx@hhu4gzkcms62>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 13:40:44 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
Cc: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Emanuele Ghidoli <emanuele.ghidoli@...adex.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] i2c: lpi2c: implement master_xfer_atomic callback
Hi Francesco,
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> Il 14 maggio 2025 17:14:32 CEST, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org> ha scritto:
> >On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 03:51:14PM +0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> >> Rework the read and write code paths in the driver to support operation
> >> in atomic contexts. To achieve this, the driver must not rely on IRQs
> >> or perform any scheduling, e.g., via a sleep or schedule routine. Even
> >> jiffies do not advance in atomic contexts, so timeouts based on them
> >> are substituted with delays.
> >>
> >> Implement atomic, sleep-free, and IRQ-less operation. This increases
> >> complexity but is necessary for atomic I2C transfers required by some
> >> hardware configurations, e.g., to trigger reboots on an external PMIC chip.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Emanuele Ghidoli <emanuele.ghidoli@...adex.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
> >
> >this patch is causing a build regression. I'm going to revert it,
> >please check the test report that has been reported and you are
> >cc'ed.
>
> I am looking at it, it's a warning with W=1, not a build error.
> I would not revert this patch, just wait for a follow up patch
> or comment that will address that warning.
please send a v2 already fixed I don't want to keep a regression
even if it's a small warning.
We still have time until the merge window and this patch is
already reviewed by Carlos.
Thanks,
Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists